!■ •; ,"' : iji.v8. 



UNCAUSED BEING 



My i'HE 



CF ON OF TRUTt 



JL.^ * JL*£ * JL-/ JL-*' A V.JL V. 




Class Mjl j y~ i 

Book_ 






Copyright}! L 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT; 



THE UNCAUSED BEING 

AND THE CRITERION 

OF TRUTH 



TO WHICH IS APPENDED AN 
EXAMINATION OF THE VIEWS 
OF SIR OLIVER LODGE CON- 
CERNING THE ETHER OF SPACE 



BY 
E. Z. DERR, M.D. 

Author of " Evolution versus Involution ' 




BOSTON 
SHERMAN, FRENCH & COMPANY 

1911 



t$? 






S"U 



Copyright, 1911 
Sherman, French &+ Company 



©CI.A2S9210 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. Introductory 1 

II. General Considerations and the 

Criterion of Truth .... 26 

III. Propositions 51 

IV. Space — Motion — Force — Matter 59 

V. Conceptions of the Uncaused 

Being 77 

VI. The Theory of Evolution in its 
Relation to the Present Dis- 
cussion — The Ether of Space . 93 



FOREWORD 

This work was completed before the death of 
William James, professor of philosophy in Har- 
vard University, and the criticisms of his Plur- 
alistic philosophy stand exactly as then written, 
without additions or alterations of any kind. 
As a man, Prof. James was beloved by all who 
knew him, and his benevolent nature and open 
mindedness endeared him to many whose philo- 
sophical views differed radically from his own. 

But esteem for the man should not disarm 
criticism of the writings he has laid before the 
world. In his last work, "A Pluralistic Uni- 
verse," Prof. James, in declaring for a finite 
God, strikes at the very foundation of Monothe- 
ism. Polytheism, with all of its absurdities, is 
the logical outcome of such a philosophy. 
Prof. James seems to have been so weighed down 
by the presence of so much suffering in the 
world that he could not reconcile it with the ex- 
istence of an Omnipotent Deity. He therefore 
declares in his "Pluralistic Universe": — "I be- 
lieve that the only God worthy of the name must 
be finite. ... If the Absolute exist in 
addition, and the hypothesis must, in spite of its 
irrational features, still be left open, then the 
absolute is only the wider Cosmic whole of which 
v 



vi FOREWORD 

our God is but the most ideal portion, and which 
in the more usual human sense is hardly to be 
termed a religious hypothesis at all. Cosmic 
emotion is the better name for the reaction it 
may awaken. Observe that all the irrationality 
and puzzles which the Absolute gives rise to, and 
from which the finite God remains free, are due 
to the fact that the Absolute has nothing, ab- 
solutely nothing, outside itself. The finite God 
whom I contrast with it may conceivably have 
almost nothing outside of himself ; He may have 
triumphed over and absorbed all but the min- 
utest fraction of the Universe, but that fraction, 
however small, reduces him to the status of a rel- 
ative being, and in principle the Universe is 
saved from all the irrationalism incidental to ab- 
solutism. . . . Because God is not the 
Absolute, but is himself a part when the system 
is conceived pluralistically, his functions can be 
taken as not wholly dissimilar to those of the 
other smaller parts, as similar to our functions, 
consequently. Having an environment, being in 
time, and working out a history just like our- 
selves, he escapes from the foreignness of all 
that is human." 

The -finite Being here depicted is shorn of the 
chief attributes of Deity — creative power and 
Omnipotence — and there is no good reason why 
there should not be a multitude of such limited 
beings. 



FOREWORD vii 

But this is not the place to enter upon a crit- 
icism of Prof. James's philosophy; this is 
done under the head of Polytheism. 



CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTORY 

It is doubtful if arguments concerning the ex- 
istence of a Creator can be advanced which will 
be satisfactory to all minds. 

To one the dictum of Descartes, "J'ai tire la 
preuve de V existence de Dieu de Videe que je 
trouve en moi d'un etre souverainement parfait," 
is all sufficing. Another looks abroad on nature 
and sees in the starry heavens and the broad 
expanse of ocean unanswerable arguments for 
the existence of a Deity. The beautiful adap- 
tation of means to ends observable in all of na- 
ture's ways appeals to many with irresistible elo- 
quence. The great Galen spoke of his anatom- 
ical writings as a hymn of praise to the Deity, 
and Sir Charles Bell regarded the mechanism of 
the human hand as a strong argument for the 
existence of a designing power overruling Na- 
ture. 

The arguments drawn from these sources are 
hallowed by time, and will never lose weight with 
the mass of thinking minds. But there are 
those who demand more convincing proofs than 
these arguments can supply. To the assertion 
of the Pantheist that "The Universe as a whole 
is to be regarded as the Deity," the arguments 
1 



2 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

drawn from the evidence of design in nature af- 
ford no satisfactory reply. The moral chaos 
resulting from such doctrines, so strenuously 
urged by some, is not so apparent to others ; and 
at the present day there are journals which en- 
joy a high reputation for the learning and abil- 
ity with which they are edited that are devoted to 
the propagation of Pantheistic ideas. The men 
so engaged are earnest seekers after truth and 
it is unjust to accuse them of knowingly spread- 
ing false doctrines. It is obvious that the argu- 
ments against Pantheism, drawn from the moral 
evil which it is supposed to entail, have not the 
slightest weight with such thinkers. 

The present age is a veritable Babel of philo- 
sophical and scientific speculation. The Panthe- 
ist or Materialistic Monist declares that the 
Universe is sufficient unto itself ; and the Plural- 
ist, on the other hand, affirms that there may be 
an indefinite multitude of independent beings, 
and that the greatest of them we may dignify 
by the title of God, though He, like the rest, is 
finite, with antecedents and a "history." 

By one we are told that the ultimate atoms of 
matter are possessed of a certain kind of voli- 
tion and self -consciousness (Voght's pyknotic 
theory, adopted by Haeckel in his "Riddle of 
the Universe") which enable them to select suit- 
able partners for themselves, which unions re- 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 3 

suit in the various combinations which matter 
assumes. 1 

We are treated to learned and sympathetic 
criticism on the vagaries of a Nietzsche, a F'ech- 
ner and a Bergson, and their writings enlist a 
host of ardent admirers. 

We are told by Prof. William James that if 
there be a God he must be "finite" with a "his- 
tory"; that the existence of what we call evil in 
the world is incompatible with an Omnipotent 
Beneficence. Thus the door is thrown wide 
open to Polytheism, for if there is one finite 
Deity there is no good reason why there should 
not be a multitude. This is nothing less than 
an invitation to all the Olympians, from Jupiter 
down, to take possession of their old abodes 
whence they were ejected, bag and baggage, 
some two thousand years ago. 

By some we are informed that the Ether is a 
continuum (that is, without vacuities) and ab- 
solutely infinite in extension. Void space is 
therefore everywhere abolished, and we are in- 
vited to contemplate an absolutely infinite ma- 
terial corporeality — an absolutely solid mass of 
matter (a solid of such a nature as "old-time" 

i This theory was evidently suggested by the Monads 
of Leibnitz, but the difference between the Pyknatom 
and the Monad is the difference between Materialism 
and Theism. The one is conceived of as self-existent, 
but Leibnitz made his Monads the creation of Deity, 



4 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

science conceived the atom to be, for in a contin- 
uum there can be no vacuities) extending in all 
directions without limit. 

The examination of this theory, both on its 
scientific and philosophic sides, furnished the 
excuse for the appendix to this volume. One 
of its chief exponents, Sir Oliver Lodge, is con- 
fessedly a Theist, but his views lead logically to 
materialistic Pantheism. 

If the Ether is an absolutely infinite contin- 
uum (space being thereby abolished) then it 
might be regarded, with some show of reason, as 
the One Great Being, and the position of the 
Pantheist or Materialist would be more strongly 
entrenched. 

We have but to endow the Ether with thought, 
and the Pantheism of Spinoza stands revealed. 
There is but one substance, says Spinoza, and 
that substance possesses thought and extension, 
and is God. 

That Spinoza identified God and Nature as 
One there can be no reasonable doubt, in view 
of the following quotations from the "Ethica," 
translated by White: — 

Prop. XIV. (First part). Besides God, no sub- 
stance can be nor can be conceived. 

Corollary. 1st. Hence it follows with the great- 
est clearness that God is one, that is 
to say, in Nature there is but one sub- 
stance. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 5 

Corollary. 2nd. It follows second, that the 
Thing Extended {rem extensum) } and 
the Thing Thinking {rem cogitan- 
tem), are either the attributes of God 
or affections of the attributes of God. 

Prop. I. (Second part). Thought is an attri- 
bute of God. Individual thoughts, or 
this and that thought, are modes which 
express the nature of God in a certain 
and determinate manner. God there- 
fore possesses an attribute, the concep- 
tion of which is involved in all indi- 
vidual thoughts, and through which 
they are conceived. Thought, there- 
fore, is one of the infinite attributes 
of God which expresses the eternal 
and infinite essence of God or, in 
other words, God is a thinking Thing. 

Prop. II. Extension is an attribute of God, or 
God is an Extended Thing. The dem- 
onstration of this proposition is of the 
same character as the last. 

Prop. XI. The first thing which forms the actual 
being of the human mind is nothing 
else than the idea of an individual 
thing actually existing. 

Corollary. Hence it follows that the human mind 
is a part of the infinite intellect of 
God, and therefore, when we say that 
the human mind perceives this or that 
thing, we say nothing else than that 
God has this or that idea. 



6 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

In the preface to part four of the "Ethica" 
we have: — 

"We have shown in the appendix to 
the first part of this work that Nature 
does nothing for the sake of an end, 
for that eternal and infinite Being 
whom we call God or Nature acts by 
the same necessity by which He ex- 
ists. . . . Since, therefore, He 
exists for no end; and since He has 
no principles or end of existence, He 
has no principles or end of action." 

As a piece of consecutive reasoning the "Eth- 
ica" of Spinoza stands without a rival in the 
history of philosophy. Attempting as much as 
he did it is not surprising that he should have 
become entangled in the mazes of his own 
thought, and that his conclusions are often er- 
roneous. If, however, we substitute for the 
word, God, the word, Nature, much of the am- 
biguity in his system is cleared up. 

Pantheism and Atheism are philosophically 
identical. Both regard the universe as un- 
caused and eternal — the supreme existence, and 
the idea of creation has no place in this scheme 
of things. The word Atheism has been discarded 
in a great measure by philosophers, and this is 
largely due to its vicious associations, and its 
abandonment, therefore, is nothing more than a 
concession to popular opinion. The words Pan- 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 7 

theism, Monism, Materialism, Naturalism are 
adopted in its stead. The "Cosmic emotion" 
which stirs within us as we look abroad on the 
face of nature and behold the beautiful adapta- 
tion of means to the accomplishment of ends, or 
contemplate the wonders of the heavens, is re- 
garded by these philosophers as a fair substitute 
for the religious emotion experienced by those 
who believe in the existence of a beneficent Cre- 
ator. While we must accord all sympathy to 
those who are deprived by their philosophical 
tenets of an object of worship other than the 
wonders of nature, we must yet demur at the in- 
consistency and short-sightedness of elevating 
the material world into an object of religious 
adoration. Sound judgment compels us to look 
upon man and his intellectual achievements as 
the crown of terrestrial things. Great indeed 
are the wonders of the phenomenal universe, but 
the mind of man is greater still. The stars 
which "sparkle on the robe of night" are, after 
all, nothing more than immense masses of mat- 
ter, akin to the dirt we tread upon, in an incan- 
descent state, and our world is the offspring of a 
star of similar nature. It must be confessed, 
therefore, that, from the materialistic point of 
view, the religion of the Positivists, founded by 
a celebrated Frenchman, has some ground for 
justification. The extremists of the French 
Revolution elevated on the altar of Notre Dame 



8 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

a beautiful woman, symbolic of human reason. 
With what measure of religious adoration they 
viewed this nude goddess we are allowed to con- 
jecture, but surely her worship was not attended 
by any marked improvement in the morals of her 
devotees. 

A distinguished American writer, Prof. James, 
has divided mankind into the tough minded and 
the tender minded. As the tough minded re- 
quire but little in the way of religion for their 
peace of mind, the cult established by Comte may 
be all-sufficient for their needs, but the tender 
minded require something more inspiring than 
the worship of human nature. Even the most 
illustrious of the race have their faults, and their 
imperfections often assume alarming proportions 
in the glare of publicity. 

To Comte's immortal honor, be it said, no 
crafty statesmen or bloody warriors were given 
place in his Calendar of the Saints. In the Pan- 
theon which he suggested, niches were reserved 
only for those truly great men whose achieve- 
ments in the world of mind have shed glory over 
the age in which they lived, or whose efforts in 
ameliorating suffering and want have endeared 
them to the whole of mankind. Thus we find 
such names as Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, 
Hippocrates, Galen, Galileo, Harvey, Newton 
and Howard, but there are no Hannibals, Cassars 
nor Napoleons. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 9 

The celebrated German philosopher, Kant, 
while maintaining that the various arguments 
for the existence of a Creator fall short of ab- 
solute demonstrative proof was nevertheless so 
firmly persuaded that man's moral nature re- 
quired belief in such a Being, that he declared 
in his "Critique of Pure Reason" : — 

"If there does not exist a Supreme Being dis- 
tinct from the universe — if the universe is without 
a beginning, consequently without a Creator — if 
our wills are not free, and the soul is divisible and 
subject to corruption just like matter — the ideas 
and principles of morality lose all validity, and 
fall with the transcendental ideas which consti- 
tuted their theoretical support. . . . For in 
this sphere action is absolutely necessary, that is, 
I must act in obedience to the moral law in all 
points. The end is here incontrovertibly estab- 
lished and there is only one condition possible, ac- 
cording to the best of my perception, under which 
this end can harmonize with all other ends and so 
have practical validity — namely, the existence of a 
God and of a future world. I know also, to a cer- 
tainty, that no one can be acquainted with any 
other conditions which conduct to the same unity 
of ends under the moral law. But since the moral 
precept is at the same time my maxim (as reason 
requires that it should be) I am irresistibly con- 
strained to believe in the existence of God and in 
a future life; I am sure that nothing can make me 
waver in this belief, since I should thereby over- 



10 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

throw my moral maxims, the renunciation of which 
would render me hateful in my own eyes." 

The distinguished English biologist, George 
Romanes, the close friend and disciple of Dar- 
win, was led by like considerations, to renounce 
an avowedly atheistical attitude, and to recog- 
nize the existence of a Creator. 1 

The power of the reasoning faculty to demon- 
strate the existence of a God has often been 
denied, yet the writer is firmly persuaded that 
this, the greatest of our endowments, has not 
been so slighted by its Creator as to have with- 
held from it the power of proving that Creator's 
existence. Twenty-five years ago the writer 
published a work entitled "Evolution versus In- 
volution" in which he endeavored to show that 
the theory of Evolution, when properly inter- 
preted, necessitates belief in such a Being. The 

i This distinguished scientist declared in his last work, 
published after his death, "When I wrote the preceding 
treatise (The Candid Examination) I did not sufficiently 
appreciate the immense importance of human nature, as 
distinguished from physical nature, in my inquiry touch- 
ing Theism. But since then I have seriously studied an- 
thropology (including the science of comparative relig- 
ions), psychology and metaphysics, with the result of 
clearly seeing that human nature is the most important 
part of nature as a whole whereby to investigate the 
theory of Theism. This I ought to have anticipated on 
merely a 'priori grounds, and no doubt should have per- 
ceived, had I not been too much immersed in merely 
physical research." 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 11 

word "Evolution," means (using the lan- 
guage of Dr. Martineau) "to unfold from 
within, and it is taken from the history of the 
seed or embryo of living natures. And what is 
the seed but a casket of prearranged futurities 
with its whole contents prospective, settled to be 
what they are by reference to ends still in the 
distance?" This was written by Dr. Martineau 
in criticism of Mr. Spencer's general philosophi- 
cal attitude, and his definition of evolution in 
particular. Spencer formulates several defini- 
tions of evolution. On page 360 "First Prin- 
ciples" he says: — "Evolution is definable as a 
change from incoherent homogeneity to a coher- 
ent heterogeneity, accompanying the dissipation 
of motion and integration of matter." On page 
369 of the same work he tells us: — "Evolution 
is an integration of matter and concomitant dis- 
sipation of motion, during which the matter 
passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity 
to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; and dur- 
ing which the retained motion undergoes a paral- 
lel transformation." He elsewhere formulates it 
thus: — "Evolution is a change from an indefi- 
nite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, co- 
herent heterogeneity, through continuous differ- 
entiations and integrations.** In another place 
we are told: — "At the same time that evolution is 
a change from the homogeneous to the heter- 
ogeneous, it is a change from the indefinite. 



12 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

Along with an advance from simplicity to com- 
plexity, there is an advance from confusion to 
order, from undetermined arrangement to de- 
termined arrangement." The keynote of these 
various definitions is that evolution is a change 
from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous. 
Mr. Spencer borrowed the idea from the cele- 
brated Von Baer who used it merely as a mor- 
phological generalization, and had no notion 
of making it the foundation of an all-embrac- 
ing philosophy. But in Mr. Spencer's hands 
it became the basis for a cosmogony. Therein 
he made a fundamental error which it is im- 
possible to understand how he could have 
made, in view of the fact that every egg 
and seed in nature declare that they are not 
"confused" masses of "undetermined arrange- 
ments," as is clearly shown when the egg is 
hatched and the seed sprouts into the plant. 
Mr. Spencer's definition ignores the potencies, 
which make the egg what it is, and is therefore 
utterly inadequate and misleading. In replying 
to Dr. Martineau's criticism Mr. Spencer made 
the following remarkable answer (First Princi- 
ples, pp. 285-6) "Now, this criticism would have 
been very much to the point did the word evolu- 
tion truly express the process it names. If this 
process, as scientifically defined, really involved 
that conception which the word evolution was 
originally designed to convey, the implications 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 13 

would be those Mr. Martineau alleges. But the 
word having been in possession of the field be- 
fore the process was understood, has been 
adopted merely because displacing it by another 
word seemed impracticable. And this adoption 
of it has been joined with a caution against mis- 
understandings arising from its unfitness. Here 
is a part of the caution: — 'Evolution has other 
meanings, some of which are incongruous with, 
and some even directly opposed to, the meaning 
here given it. As ordinarily understood, to 
evolve is to unfold, to open and expand, to 
throw out, to emit ; whereas, as we understand it, 
the act of evolving, though it implies increase 
of a concrete aggregate, and in so far an ex- 
pansion of it, implies that its component matter 
has passed from a more diffused to a more con- 
centrated state — has contracted. The antithet- 
ical word "involution/' would much more truly 
express the nature of the process, and would in- 
deed describe better the secondary characters of 
the process which we shall have to deal with 
presently.' So that the meanings which the 
word (evolution) involves, and which Mr. Mar- 
tineau regards as fatal to the hypothesis, are al- 
ready repudiated as not belonging to the hypo- 
thesis." 

Mr. Spencer in repudiating the true meaning 
of the word evolution, revealed by every seed and 
egg in nature, still clung to it to name his sys- 



14 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

tern, offering as an excuse that being already in 
possession of the field, it seemed impracticable to 
replace it by the word involution, which he says 
is much better fitted to express his views. Was 
ever a lamer excuse offered by a philosopher in 
naming a system of thought ? By the light with 
which this word involution floods his philosophy, 
its inconsistencies and shortcomings are re- 
vealed. In the writer's work "Evolution versus 
Involution," the attempt is made to expose the 
errors of his system. A distinguished English 
writer has characterized Mr. Spencer's philos- 
ophy as "possessing the incurable defect of fun- 
damental incoherence," and the criticism is a just 
one. 

It was an apt saying of Berkeley that nature 
speaks to us in a "visual language." This was 
not a mere figure of speech with Berkeley, but a 
truth of profound significance. The lesson 
taught us by the germs of nature speaks to our 
understanding and enables us to interpret the 
hidden meaning of things. 

It is undeniably true that the fertilized seed 
of the plant and the fertilized ovum of the animal 
embrace within their compass the potencies of the 
fully developed plant and animal. The signifi- 
cance of Dr. Martineau's definition of evolution 
is at once apparent — what is not involved cannot 
be evolved. Evolution is an unfolding of that 
which previously existed, and this existence may 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 15 

be potential or it may be material, or it may be 
both. No doubt we would find a great difference 
in the molecular structure of the essential part 
(the germinal spot) of a chicken's egg and that 
of a duck if the powers of the microscope could 
be increased sufficiently, but as it is they are ab- 
solutely indistinguishable by the best instru- 
ments at our command. 

Nevertheless, every point of difference be- 
tween the developed chicken and the developed 
duck must have existed potentially or in material 
form in their respective eggs. 

We cannot call on environment to explain the 
wide difference of structure, for the difference 
exists when they issue from the shell. What is 
true of the seed of a plant or the egg of an ani- 
mal, is true of the globe on which we dwell. All 
things which the earth has brought forth must 
have existed potentially or in material form in 
the molten mass as thrown from its parent, the 
Sun. The Sun, in its turn must have possessed 
in potency or in material peculiarities, the vari- 
ous forms which the earth presents, and must 
have inherited these from the nebulous mass to 
which it owes its origin. From this conclusion 
there is no escape — What is not involved cannot 
be evolved. Now, Pantheism asserts that the 
Material Universe has existed from eternity, and 
we are therefore compelled to regard it as the 
Uncaused Being, the ultimate source of all 



16 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

things. In the process known as evolution, 
Pantheism asks us to contemplate this Being in 
the act of unfolding itself. But man is himself 
a part of this Being, and we are thus called upon 
to accept the astounding proposition that the 
Uncaused can be circumscribed and subjected to 
analysis by that which is dependent upon it for 
existence, and to ignore the self-evident truth 
that "The whole is greater than any of its 
parts." 

Man, being but a part, cannot in reason pred- 
icate growth or development of the whole. As 
well might a blood corpuscle circulating in the 
vessels speculate on the nature and doings of the 
whole man. In other words, if the Material 
Universe is itself the Uncaused Being, the theory 
of Evolution, as explaining the Cosmos, becomes 
a glaring absurdity, inasmuch as it implies that 
man has circumscribed and subjected to analy- 
sis the Ultimate Source of his being. But if we 
regard the Universe as a dependent being, a 
caused thing like ourselves, we can justly main- 
tain that the process known as evolution is but 
the unfolding of the Will of the Uncaused Being 
to whom it owes its existence. The process be- 
comes possible only when there are involved laws 
to be made manifest. 

Evolution, therefore, as applied to the Cosmos 
necessarily implies the existence of a Being in 
whom the idea of the Cosmos must have been 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 17 

present before it assumed material form, and in 
the phenomena we are to recognize the Will of 
this Being in process of being unfolded. 

But we must be careful not to confound this 
Being with the will power which He manifests, 
for by so doing we place ourselves in the exact 
position now held by the Materialist. 

As the doctrine of Evolution, considered as a 
Cosmic process, may be questioned by some, we 
must advance other arguments for the existence 
of a Creator, and the following pages are de- 
voted to this obj ect. 

Now if anything exists an Uncaused Being 
exists, and, on a priori grounds, we are compelled 
to maintain that this Being is absolutely infinite. 
If it can be shown that we are not justified in 
regarding the matter of which the Universe con- 
sists as a Continuum and universal space a plen- 
um, then we are justified in maintaining that 
matter is not absolutely infinite, however extended 
it may be throughout the Celestial Sphere. 

Matter is that something which impresses us 
as occupying Space, or, to put it in another way, 
matter is the absence of space, and if it be ab- 
solutely continuous (a Contmuum), without vac- 
uities or voids, it is obvious that all space is 
abolished. 

On this view Matter would be absolutely in- 
finite, and we would be obliged to accord to it an 
absolutely infinite magnitude, thus satisfying our 



18 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

a priori conception of the Uncaused. But we 
maintain that Matter is not a Continuum, that 
space (void) really does exist, and that Matter 
is, therefore, not of such a magnitude that we 
cannot conceive a greater, for in imagination we 
can fill up these voids. 

Matter and Space (void) mutually limit one 
another: if all matter were abolished then Space 
would be absolutely infinite, if all Space were 
abolished then Matter would be absolutely in- 
finite. Sir Oliver Lodge in maintaining that 
Matter is a Continuum has abolished Space, and 
from his standpoint the Universe is a solid mass 
of Matter, a solid of such a nature as "old- 
time" science regarded the atom to be. 1 

In other words the Universe becomes One 
Great Atom, without parts, indivisible and in- 
compressible. Now, indeed, Materialism would 
be triumphant if this were true. But sense per- 
ception and the verdict of reason declare that 
this view of things is not tenable. Weight of 
authority should always be respected, particu- 
larly in matters pertaining to science, but when 

i The atom, whatever its ultimate nature, is properly- 
defined as the smallest particle of matter which is with- 
out parts, indivisible and incompressible. The elements 
known to chemistry, such as gold, iron, etc., are now 
regarded as molecules, composed of still smaller par- 
ticles, perhaps etheric. The word "Electron" is now 
much in vogue to designate these smallest particles. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 19 

we are asked to accept the irrational we are justi- 
fied in hewing a path for ourselves. We there- 
fore maintain that motion in a material Con- 
tinuum is impossible, is contradictory, and that 
the acceptance of the one is a denial of the other. 
The ability to pen these lines is a refutation of 
the theory of a Continuum. 

The idea has been advanced that, after all, the 
atoms may be nothing more than centers of 
force. This attempt to reduce matter itself to a 
form of force, as suggested by Bischoff and 
others, is leaving the domain of physics and en- 
tering upon that of metaphysics. Science, 
purely as such, knows nothing of a force which 
is not initiated by matter in motion. In other 
words, the force known to science is not an en- 
tity in itself, but is imparted or transmitted mo- 
tion — motion imparted by a moving mass or 
atom of matter to another mass or atom. This 
becomes very clear if we assume, as Materialism 
does, that matter is uncaused and has always 
been in motion. On the assumption that matter 
has been created, then, it is equally clear, that 
the Power that set it in motion can be defined 
only as a Spontaneous Will, or to use the lan- 
guage of theology, a Divine decree. 

The great Bishop Berkeley, in abolishing the 
atoms, which he regarded as the stronghold of 
Atheism, replaced them by the direct impres- 



20 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

sion made upon our consciousness by Divine 
Power. 1 

It is needless to state that this is not the in- 
terpretation to be placed on the views of the 
modern scientist who talks about reducing mat- 
ter to centers of force. What is gained, from 
the standpoint of science, by calling that which 
impresses us as occupying space, Force, instead 
of using the word Matter? It would be merely 
a change of name without advancing our knowl- 
edge. Instead of elucidating, it would cause 
confusion by designating by the same word, 
force, the mass, say of the sun, and the force 
(gravitation) induced by this mass. 

To those who interpret matter in the terms of 
Berkeley we have nothing to say ; for matter, in 
last analysis, can be defined only as the expres- 
sion of the will of Deity. To the mere physi- 
cist we reply, "You are merely changing the 
names of things, and are calling black, white. 
Science, then, requires us to look upon matter as 
composed of ultimate particles of something 
which occupies Space. These particles, what- 
ever their nature may be, "Etheric" or "Elec- 
tronic," or by whatever name we choose to des- 
ignate them, are the true atoms of nature, with- 
out parts, indivisible and incompressible. They 

i Amid the obscurity of Hegel illuminating flashes oc- 
casionally greet us, as when he tells us, that "the truth 
of Matter is Spirit" 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 21 

move freely among one another and are sep- 
arated by Space (void) and the motion they 
impart to one another constitutes the various 
forces which we see manifested in the Material 
Universe. 

Now, these atoms are either Uncaused, i. e. 
self existent, or they are caused, that is, cre- 
ated. 

If Uncaused, we have Materialism, and, in 
addition, Pluralism with a vengeance, for each 
atom being self existent, is independent of all 
others, and becomes a little God in itself. 

In the appendix to "Evolution versus Involu- 
tion," the writer expressed himself on this point 
as follows: 

"An Uncaused thing can have no compulsory re- 
lation to any other Uncaused thing — must be un- 
conditioned. Any relation which it might have to 
another Uncaused thing must spring from within 
itself uninfluenced by anything outside of it — 
must be the result of free volition. On the sup- 
position, then, that there are such things as atoms, 
and that they are Uncaused, and therefore uncon- 
ditioned, it is obvious that the mutual reaction ex- 
isting among them cannot be the result of necessity 
or compulsion, but of spontaneous conscious activ- 
ity; for were such interaction induced by compul- 
sion, then the premise with which we started as a 
necessary postulate of an Uncaused thing would be 
violated. 



22 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

"The Materialist, therefore, who regards the 
atoms as Uncaused (and to be a Materialist he 
must so regard them) and still denies self-con- 
sciousness and freedom to each, is guilty of a con- 
tradiction, for he takes away from the atom, by 
this very denial, its Unconditioned and Uncaused 
nature. If, setting at defiance all reason, he main- 
tains that the atoms do possess self-consciousness 
and freedom, then he multiplies the mystery of the 
Universe in the same measure that indefinite mul- 
titude is greater than unity — instead of one God 
he would have an indefinite multitude of Gods. 

"The Materialist, then, is reduced to the neces- 
sity of denying the existence of atoms, and to look 
upon the Universe as a continuous unbroken mass 
of matter (a Continuum). But this necessarily 
involves the denial of the existence of Space. And 
here the Materialist is met by the incontrovertible 
facts of universal experience. He cannot shut his 
eyes to the truth that what he calls matter is denser 
in some places than in others; that, for instance, 
a cubic inch of iron contains more matter than a 
cubic inch of air. But if he acknowledges this, 
and acknowledge it he must, then, perforce, he 
must likewise acknowledge that Space (which may 
be defined as the absence of what we call Matter) 
does exist. But if Space exists, the Universe can- 
not be continuous Matter, and what we call Mat- 
ter must, therefore, be conceived of as consisting 
of infinitesimal particles (atoms) separated from 
one another by Space; and to such particles, as al- 
ready shown, an unconditioned nature cannot be 
assigned. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 2S 

"An Uncaused, Unconditioned, limited thing is a 
contradiction. The atoms, therefore, cannot be 
Uncaused, and Materialism is an absurdity." 

In the following pages the writer has at- 
tempted to show that the matter of which the 
Universe consists is not a Continuum, and is not, 
therefore, of such a magnitude, however ex- 
tended it may be, as to satisfy our conception of 
Uncaused Being. The demonstration it sup- 
plies in proof of the existence of a Creator is, 
therefore, a posteriori. 

Several different words are in use to express 
that system of belief which looks upon the Uni- 
verse as a self-subsistent thing, but all of them, 
Agnosticism, Pantheism, Monism, Materialism, 
Naturalism and Rationalism, in last analysis, 
may be expressed by the word Atheism (a, with- 
out, and Theos, God) for they recognize no Be- 
ing distinct from the Universe who called it into 
existence. 

All efforts to reconcile man's moral nature 
with this system of thought have signally failed. 
From a moral point of view the question is one 
of transcendent practical importance, to say 
nothing of its profound philosophical signifi- 
cance. The views of individual philosophers 
filter though to the masses, influencing their con- 
duct in all the relations of life, and it is not too 
much to say that Atheism engrafted on illiteracy 



24 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

forms a combination which is a standing menace 
to civilization. 

It is curious as well as instructive to note with 
what regularity these tidal waves of Atheistical 
belief have swept over the civilized world, and 
their appearance, with almost cyclical regularity, 
might justify us in believing that there is some 
law governing their recurrence. 

The terrible catastrophy which overtook 
France in the latter part of the 18th century, 
while directly the result of bad government and 
oppression, was fostered by the Atheistical spirit 
so widespread among the people; and the 
Nihilistic movement of more recent times was 
largely due to the same causes. Atheistical 
philosophers have much to answer for in letting 
loose the fiends of unbelief upon the world. 
The holy spirit of freedom, which teaches man to 
assert his native dignity and to rise against op- 
pression, they might have guided to the com- 
passing of noble ends: but they have chosen to 
sow the seeds of Atheism, thereby diverting this 
grand spirit from its legitimate channels, thus 
encouraging anarchy and crime. 

Anarchy and Atheism, with the illiterate, go 
hand in hand and are inseparable. And what, 
indeed, is Atheism but moral Anarchy, where the 
very foundations of right and wrong are swept 
away, leaving the conduct of life based upon 
nothing but the shifting sands of expediency ? 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 25 

"Has matter innate motion? Then each atom, 

Asserting its indisputable right 

To dance, would form an universe of dust. 

Has Matter none? Then whence these glorious 
forms 

And boundless flights, from shapeless and re- 
posed? 

Has matter more than motion? Has it thought, 

Judgment and genius? Is it deeply learn'd 

In mathematics? Has it framed such laws, 

Which, but to guess, a Newton made immortal? 

If so, how each sage atom laughs at me, 

Who think a clod inferior to a man ! 

If art, to form; and counsel to conduct: 

And that with greater far, than human skill, 

Resides not in each block: — a Godhead reigns, — 

Grant, then, invisible, eternal mind; 

That granted, all is solved." 

Young — "Night Thoughts." 



CHAPTER II 

GENERAL CONDITIONS AND THE CRI- 
TERION OF TRUTH 

All of our ideas concerning the ultimate nature 
of things may be classed under one or the other 
of the following headings: — Monotheism, Pan- 
theism, Polytheism and Solipsism * or, if we 
may coin a word for the sake of uniformity, 
Egotheism. 

1. Monotheism, usually called Theism for brev- 
ity, looks upon the Universe, ourselves 
included, as phenomenal, and the work 
of a Being distinct from it in essence, 
who stands in relation to it as Cause, 
Author or Creator. The Reality pos- 
sessed by the Universe, so conceived of, is 
called a dependent, contingent, or caused 
reality to distinguish it from the un- 
caused reality of the Being to whom it 
owes its existence. 

% Pantheism looks upon the Universe, ourselves 
included, as Noumenal, all sufficient unto 
itself, uncreated and eternal, without be- 

i The word, Solipsism, signifies that the individual 
thinker is the sole existence. The word, Egotheism, ex- 
presses the same idea. This notion has been, and is 
still held by some philosophers, though veiled. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 27 

ginning and without end. The reality 
it possesses is therefore uncaused or in- 
dependent, for beside it there is naught 
else. 

This view of the nature of things is 
also designated Atheism, Materialism, 
Monism and Naturalism, In their phil- 
osophical significance they are all identi- 
cal with Pantheism, for all regard the 
Universe as the sole existence, uncaused 
and eternal. 
&. Polytheism. When the Olympians were 
obliged to flee from their mountain height 
before the advancing footsteps of calm- 
eyed Truth, all arrayed in flowing gar- 
ments of purest white ; when, at the ap- 
proach of the same bright vision, the 
Scandinavian hordes, headed by Woden 
himself, sought refuge in the bottomless 
fiords or retreated to the icy and inac- 
cessible caverns of their glacial-capped 
land, it was thought that Polytheism had 
disappeared forever from the haunts of 
civilized man. 

But history will sometimes repeat itself, and 
under the guise of Pluralism, Polytheism again 
rears its head, championed by some of the most 
brilliant writers of the day. 

It is hard to believe in this age of ma- 



28 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

terial and intellectual progress, when "Space is 
mocked and time outrun," that such ideas should 
be revived in the minds of men. 

The battle of the "Many" with the "One" is 
on once more. Under the leadership of Prof. 
James, not to mention lesser lights, the great 
host, with confidence in their redoubtable chief, 
are advancing to the contest. Despairing of 
a direct frontal attack on the Absolute or 
Omnipotent One, they have resorted to a 
flank movement, and think they have discov- 
ered in the problem of Good and Evil the weak 
point of their adversary's position. As the Gen- 
eral-in-Chief of the assaulting columns we will 
give room for Prof. James to marshal his 
forces. 

In his "Pluralistic Universe" he says: — 

"I must ask you to distinguish the notion of the 
Absolute (By which he means Omnipotence), from 
that of another object with which it is liable to 
become entangled. That other object is the 'God' 
of common people in their religion, and the Crea- 
tor God of orthodox Christian religion. . . . 
He and we stand outside of each other, just as the 
devil, the saints and the angels stand outside of 
both of us. I can hardly conceive of anything 
more different from the Absolute than the God, 
say, of David or of Isaiah. That God is an essen- 
tially finite Being in the Cosmos. . . . If it 
should prove probable that the Absolute does not 
exist, it will not follow in the slightest degree that 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 29 

a God like that of David, Isaiah or Jesus may not 
exist, or may not be the most important existence 
in the Universe for us to acknowledge. . . . 
I hold to the finite God, for reasons which I shall 
touch on in the seventh of these lectures. But I 
hold that his rival and competitor — the Absolute, is 
not only not forced on us by logic, but that it is an 
improbable hypothesis. . . . Although the hy- 
pothesis of the Absolute, in yielding a certain kind 
of religious peace, performs a most important 
rationalizing function, it nevertheless, from the 
intellectual point of view, remains decidedly irra- 
tional. The ideally perfect whole is certainly that 
whole of which the parts also are perfect. If we 
can depend on logic for anything, we can depend 
on it for that definition. 

"The Absolute is defined as the ideally perfect 
whole, yet most of its parts, if not all, are ad- 
mittedly imperfect. Evidently the conception 
lacks internal consistency, and yields us a prob- 
lem rather than a solution. It creates a specula- 
tive puzzle, the so-called mystery of evil and error, 
from which pluralistic metaphysic is entirely free. 
I believe that the only God worthy of the 
name must be finite ... if the Absolute exist 
in addition, and the hypothesis must, in spite of its 
irrational features, still be left open — then the 
Absolute is only the wider Cosmic whole of which 
our God is but the most ideal portion, and which in 
the more usual human sense is hardly to be termed 
a religious hypothesis at all. 'Cosmic emotion' is 
the better name for the reaction it may awaken. 
Observe that all the irrationality and puzzles 



30 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

which the Absolute gives rise to, and from which 
the finite God remains free, are due to the fact 
that the Absolute has nothing, absolutely nothing, 
outside of itself. 

"The finite God whom I contrast with it may con- 
ceivably have almost nothing outside of himself; 
he may already have triumphed over and absorbed 
all but the minutest fraction of the Universe, but 
that fraction, however small, reduces him to the 
status of a relative being, and in principle the 
Universe is saved from all the irrationalism inci- 
dental to Absolutism. The irrationality left 
would be the irrationality of which Pluralism as 
such is accused. . . . Reality may exist in 
distributive form, in the shape not of an All but of 
a Set of E aches, just as it seems to — this is the 
Anti-Absolutist hypothesis. . . . Because God 
is not the Absolute, but is himself a part when the 
system (universe) is conceived pluralistically, his 
functions can be taken as not wholly dissimilar to 
those of the other smaller parts, — as similar to our 
functions, consequently — having an environment, 
being in time and working out a history just like 
ourselves, he escapes from the foreignness of all 
that is human/ 1 

And thus, in the view of Prof. James, the 
Omnipotent One is hurled from his throne as 
the ruler and Creator of the Universe, and 
"Chaos and Old Night" enthroned in His place ; 
for his finite God is a creature like the rest of us, 
and still engaged in "overcoming" what is left 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 31 

of Chaos (or the Cosmos?). But the weapons 
wielded by Prof. James, though of a different 
character, are no less ineffective than those of 
that great Archangel we read about. "High 
was his degree," and "his countenance like the 
morning star," as he sallied forth at the head of 
his brilliant squadrons of deluded followers all 
panoplied in "gold and adamant." The result, 
we are told was dire ! 

But now to the picture Prof. James has drawn 
for us. First, we must enter our earnest protest 
against the assertion that the Christian's God is 
regarded by the average Christian as a finite Be- 
ing. While there are many earnest Christians 
who would be puzzled sorely to define the differ- 
ence between finite and infinite — in fact would 
not know what you were talking about — yet, 
however low the general intelligence, they have 
an idea of boundless or unlimited power. The 
common word, Almighty, on the lips of the street 
urchin, shows that even he has some notion of 
the unlimited. That "God can do anything" is 
a very common expression among the common- 
est kind of people, and the greatest philosopher 
can say no more. As to the God of David and 
Isaiah being finite, we can only say that both the 
Old and the New Testaments abound in passages 
which express the limitless power of the Deity. 
"The Heavens declare the glory of God and the 
firmament showeth his handiwork" is one only of 



32 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

the numerous passages which might be cited. 
The Bible not being a work on philosophy the 
words finite and infinite are not often met with. 
Being a book which deals with religious feel- 
ings and observances, the personal and paternal 
character of God are emphasized, and hence he 
is described as walking and conversing with 
men. We feel quite sure that if David and 
Isaiah were to come to life again they would set 
at rest all doubts on the subject. 

The existence of evil or imperfection in the 
world is an insuperable difficulty with Prof. 
James, and one which compels him to decide for 
a finite God. The reason assigned does credit to 
his heart, but it obliges him to sacrifice funda- 
mental philosophic as well as religious concep- 
tions, and after the sacrifice has been made the 
"puzzle" remains a puzzle still. His finite God 
is indeed relieved of all responsibility in the mat- 
ter, being but a creature like ourselves — a crea- 
ture of the universal whole, and in this universal 
whole we must look for the radical vice which 
he thinks is inherent in the constitutions of 
things. 

The problem of Good and Evil has been 
touched on by the author of this book in a 
former work entitled "Evolution versus Involu- 
tion," so a few quotations from it will not be out 
of place : — 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 33 

"Two kinds of good and evil are recognized 
among men — physical good and physical evil; 
moral good and moral evil. Though often con- 
founded in thought and speech they are as widely- 
sundered as the poles, and have no affinity with 
one another. The definition of physical good is 
that which is beneficial to the material well-being 
of the individual and of the race; physical evil is 
anything which militates against this. Famine, 
pestilence, suffering and death are all denominated 
physical evils. Moral good and moral evil, on the 
other hand, depend for their existence upon the 
consciousness of right and wrong, as measured by 
some recognized and accepted standard of conduct. 
Moral good consists in obedience to this standard, 
while wilful violation of it constitutes moral evil 
or sin. The essential nature of physical good and 
evil, therefore, lies in the act, whilst the essential 
nature of moral good and evil lies in the motive. 

"St. Paul tells us, 'the strength of sin (moral 
evil) is the Law,' thereby revealing its true nature, 
and reiterating a similar statement in 4th Romans, 
'for where no Law is, there is no transgression.' 
. What are known as physical evils occur in 
the established order of nature. . . . We can- 
not understand why pain and death should enter 
into the plan of the Universe, but their existence 
carries with it the warrant of their justification. 
The Atheist as well as the believer in a Beneficent 
Creator must alike regard the Universe as the best 
that is possible. 

Inexorable logic compels the Atheist so to re- 



34 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

gard it, and firm reliance on Infinite wisdom leads 
the Theist to believe it." * 

A radical vice in the constitution of things is 
irrational and therefore inadmissible. 

Reason herself teaches us her own limitations 
when we stand before this great problem, for be 
it remembered that we have been brought forth 
by a Being superior to ourselves, whether that 
Being be an Omnipotent Power, (in the Mono- 
theistic sense) or the Material Universe. 

In the first case can the creature in reason 
question the wisdom of its Creator? In the 
second case can a part array itself against the 
whole? The axiom "The whole is greater than 
any of its parts" teaches Reason that she can- 
not hope to comprehend that whole. In either 
case the mind must bow before the limitations of 
its being. In the first case, there is a possibil- 
ity that we may sometime understand in a future 
life what is now inexplicable ; in the last, it must 
always remain an insoluble problem, for a caused 
thing can never hope to compass or compre- 

i Some Pantheists refuse to acknowledge it. Schopen- 
hauer affirms in his "World as Will and Idea" that this 
"is the worst 'possible world," and his follower, Von 
Hartmann, declares in his "Metaphysic of the Uncon- 
scious," that "it is the best possible world, but worse 
than none at all." These two thinkers have exercised an 
immence influence, and are among the founders of the 
modern school of Pantheistic or Atheistic doctrine. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 35 

hend the uncaused, i. e., "The whole is greater 
than any of its parts." 

Man cannot, therefore, in reason arraign the 
Omnipotent One, whether it be the God of The- 
ism or the Cosmos of the Atheist, for the consti- 
tution of the world, or make its apparent im- 
perfections an excuse for calling in question the 
rightness or wrongness of the whole. 

The logic of Prof. James, therefore, loses all 
of its force, and his method of explaining the 
apparent imperfections which so trouble him, 
instead of explaining, makes the confusion still 
worse confounded. 

We are invited to contemplate a finite God 
and the philosophy of "Eaches" as a way out of 
the difficulty. 

The finite God, being "a part of the system" 
(Universe) ; "with functions similar to our 
own"; "having an environment" ; "being in time, 
and working out a history just like ourselves" 
must be either embodied, (a union of matter and 
spirit, just as we are) or he must be pure spirit 
without a material body. In the first case he 
must occupy space and have a local habitation. 
In either case he must owe his existence to the 
system (Universe) which antedated him. In 
other words he "being in time," is a creature of 
the Universe which has existed from eternity. 

He is pictured to us as engaged in conquer- 
ing the Universe, which, "He may already 



36 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

have triumphed over and absorbed all but the 
minutest fraction, but that fraction, however 
small, reduces him to the status of a relative 
being.' 9 

In contemplating this picture we are contem- 
plating a most astounding feat — that of a part 
trying to swallow the whole! 

If, however, there is no such a thing as a 
whole or system of the Universe; that is to say 
if "Reality" (ultimate or uncaused reality, not 
contingent or caused reality, is here meant by 
Prof. James) exist in distributive form, in the 
shape not of an All but of a set of "Eaches," 
which Prof. James assures us is the anti-abso- 
lutist hypothesis, then we are asked to contem- 
plate a picture only a little less surprising and 
far more terrifying in composition. 

We see before us myriads of independent Be- 
ings, (the self -existent "Eaches") taking their 
various ways along the line of endless duration. 
Now they jostle and repel one another in angry 
conflict, and now attract and blend in a mutual 
embrace. But no one can annihilate the other, 
for the stamp of primitive equality is on all. 
Even the chief among them (the finite God of 
Prof. James) is but primus inter pares, in this 
vast concourse of self-subsistent Beings. 

"Who can in reason, then, or right assume 
Monarchy over such as live by right 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 37 

His equals — if in power and splendor less, 
In freedom equal? or can introduce 
Law and edict on us." 1 

So spake Great Lucifer and "on his crest sat 
horror plumed." 

The Polytheistic implications of Pluralism 
are not denied by Prof. James, nor can he con- 
sistently do so for the premise is itself an asser- 
tion of the fact. 

Now the various "Eaches" must be composed 
of matter or spirit, but not of both, for an 
"Each" is an ultimate reality, and, therefore, 
cannot be a compound or union of two different 
things, in other words, cannot have a cause at 
all. 

We have had fathers and mothers, and they 
have had fathers and mothers, and so on up to 
Adam. Some of us are disposed to stop there, 
but others continue on. As compound beings we 
are not self-existent and therefore not "Eaches," 
but we may be such when discarnated. We may 
suppose that our spiritual "Eaches" that is our 
proper selves, entered into an agreement with 
certain other "Eaches" called atoms, to form a 
union to endure for a stated time and then dis- 
solve partnership, each "Each" going its own 
way to form other unions. Every compound 
body is necessarily ephemeral, disappearing ab- 

i Milton: " Paradise Lost." 



38 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

solutely when the union of its component parts is 
dissolved, and this holds whether the partnership 
is a commercial firm composed of Tom, Dick and 
Harry ; or whether it is the spirit of man and his 
body; or whether it is the human body itself 
composed of its various tissues ; or whether it is 
the organic and inorganic compounds which go 
to make them. When these various partnerships 
are dissolved the things themselves disappear 
from being, but the individuals whose partner- 
ships made them, remain undisturbed amid all 
the turmoil. At death the spirit of man (which 
we will suppose to be an "Each") continues on 
its own self-centered self-sufficiency; the atoms 
of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc., composing 
the various tissues of his body, wend their sev- 
eral ways, seeking new unions, and perhaps 
forming new bodies for other spiritual "Eaches" 
to enter into partnership with. We have re- 
ferred to the oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc., 
entering into the constitution of our bodies as 
if they were "Eaches," but if, as we have good 
reason for thinking, they are but compounds of 
still smaller particles, say of etheric atoms, then 
we must revise the statement that they are in 
themselves "Eaches ," and confer this dignity on 
the etheric atoms: and if it should come to pass 
that the etheric atom is itself a compound, we 
will be compelled to go still further back; and 
should it be discovered at some future time that, 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 39 

after all, the ultimate form of what we call mat- 
ter is merely a center of force (a spiritual some- 
thing) as is even now held by some, then the 
material "Eaches" would disappear from being 
and all the "Eaches" being spiritual, the ma- 
terial Universe would cease to be — not destroyed, 
but merely extinguished by the dissolution of the 
various co-partnerships of spiritual "E aches" 
which constitute it. 

The religious implications of Pluralism are 
obvious. All the various "Eaches" are co-eter- 
nal and therefore co-equal, and enter into unions 
or combinations with one another of their own 
free will. Nothing can be compulsory amid 
this vast democracy of uncaused beings, for they 
are all independent of one another, and exist by 
the necessity of their own nature. They are all 
finite in power, for the sphere of activity of each 
is limited by each, hence a multitude of infinite 
beings is impossible. Nor can we, with any 
show of reason, assume that any one of these 
equal beings can lift itself so high above the rest 
as to assert sovereignty over them. All the 
Eaches being Gods in their own right, there is no 
such a being as A God; the word, indeed, loses 
all its significance. And thus Pluralism or mod- 
ern Polytheism ends in absolute Nihilism, and the 
religious sentiment must necessarily go by de- 
fault. 

The Polytheism of Greece and Rome gave full 



40 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

play to the poetic imagination, and much of the 
finest poetry that the world has produced gath- 
ers around the doings of their ancient Gods, but 
the "Eaches" of Pluralistic philosophy appeal 
neither to the poetic sentiment nor to the reason 
of men. 

4. Ego-theism or Solipsism, (as it is usually 
called) regards self as the absolute reality 
upon which all else is contingent. It 
holds that each individual human being is 
to regard himself or herself as the only 
real existence, and that the surrounding 
Universe is the result of the unconscious 
working of the Ego to realize itself to it- 
self. Like the larva it spins from within 
itself its own environment. 

In the history of philosophy, Ego-theism 
serves to illustrate the wild vagaries to which the 
human mind is sometimes subject — vagaries 
which if carried to the same degree in practical 
affairs would afford sufficient ground for a com- 
mission in lunacy. He who can regard the phe- 
nomena which the Universe presents as forms or 
modifications of his own being, who can look 
upon himself as the center from which all things 
radiate, has placed himself on a height from 
which all the arrows ever forged in the armory 
of pure reason will never dislodge him. Safe 
in his cloud-capped retreat let him remain. To 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 41 

attempt to reason with him were to reason with 
a mad man. 

The Universe, taken in its totality, is 
either an uncaused being, or it is the ex- 
pression of the will of such a being. 1 

The implications involved in the first statement 
are Pantheistic, in the second Theistic. 

The determination of the problem presented 
falls within the scope of legitimate philosophi- 
cal inquiry, and furnishes the theme for the 
present essay. 

The domain of human knowledge has been ac- 
quired through the agency of sense perception 
and certain a priori conceptions of the under- 
standing. The first, sifted and interpreted by 
the reasoning faculty, constitutes objective 
knowledge. On the other hand, any proposition 
which contains the idea of necessity in its very 

1 Creation can be denned only as the expression of the 
will of Deity. 

The mind derives its notion of Creation from its own 
workings. The form of the chair on which I sit is the 
Creation of the human mind, but the wood of which it is 
composed is not. Knock the chair to pieces and the 
chair ceases to exist, but the material which composed it 
remains. Human art, then, does create forms, but forms 
alone; Divine art creates not only the forms of things, 
but the material of which they are composed. Hence the 
genesis of the idea of Creation in the human mind. 

Evolution and Creation are in accord, for the theory of 
Evolution recognizes that the act of Creation is the un- 
folding of the Will of Deity. 



42 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

conception is a judgment a priori. Together 
they constitute the armamentarium of the mind 
in its search after truth. One in ultimate ori- 
gin, they are one in their aims, and antagonism 
cannot exist between them. Any seeming con- 
tradiction will be found, on investigation, to 
arise from individual defects or idiosyncrasies. 

"Things that are equal to the same thing are 
equal to each other" is an a priori conception 
or necessary truth, yet it is conceivable that in 
verifying this an error might be made in the 
measurement, or the individual, from being im- 
perfect in sense perception, might be wholly un- 
able to undertake the verification. On the other 
hand, from mental imperfections he might not 
be able to grasp an axiomatic or a priori concep- 
tion. A statement, however axiomatic, would 
have no weight with a lunatic. It is obvious 
that a coterie composed of such imperfect indi- 
viduals could by no means arrive at a true con- 
ception of nature. But the mass of mankind 
are comparatively free from such defects, and in 
them the trustworthy character of the senses has 
been sufficiently tested to render it in the highest 
degree probable that their sense perception of 
the external world is correct. 

The diseased mind might not be able to grasp 
the idea that "the whole is greater than any of 
its parts," yet the normal mind will at once rec- 
ognize this statement to be a necessary truth. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 43 

Relying upon the validity of sense perception 
and a priori conceptions of the understanding, 
man has established a vast body of knowledge 
which he has systematized. Making all due al- 
lowance for rash observation and fallacious de- 
duction, we must all agree that much of mod- 
ern science reflects a fair image of what actu- 
ally exists in nature. 

If in all this body of accepted knowledge 
anything could be pointed out which conflicted 
with an a priori conception, it would be branded 
as false, and prompt to a more searching scru- 
tiny of the facts. 

We may therefore formulate our criterion of 
Truth, as: — 

The concordance between pure or a priori 

CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNDERSTANDING AND 
SENSE PERCEPTION. 

So long as we can apply this test without con- 
tradiction, so long may we rest satisfied that 
we are on the path of truth. While it is not 
possible nor needful to apply this principle at 
every point in the vast edifice which the collec- 
tive wisdom of the race has erected, yet there 
are many points where it can be applied, and 
the deep foundations of the temple of human 
knowledge must rest upon it. An architect in 
estimating the strength of a building first care- 
fully examines its foundations, and then the su- 



44 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

per-structure. Any great defect in the founda- 
tion condemns the building at once. 

In the following pages the author has en- 
deavored to apply the criterion of truth, as al- 
ready defined, to an examination of the founda- 
tions upon which is based a Pantheistic concep- 
tion of things. If in the course of this exami- 
nation it should appear that our criterion is vio- 
lated by this view of the Universe then we will be 
justified in throwing the Pantheistic theory aside 
as worthless ; and as there is but one other 
hypothesis left — that of Theism — we will be 
compelled, perforce, to regard it as the true 
one. 

It will be seen, therefore, that the method pur- 
sued furnishes an a posteriori argument for the 
existence of a Creator. It is this method, and 
this method alone, that can have any weight with 
the mind already prejudiced in favor of Panthe- 
ism. 

The dictum of Descartes, embodied in the 
phrase " J'ai tire la preuve de V existence de Dieu 
de Videe que je trouve en moi d*un etre souve- 
rainement parfait" appeals irresistibly to cer- 
tain minds, but it is inconclusive, inasmuch as it 
supplies no argument against the assertion 
which the Pantheist might make, that "the Uni- 
verse taken as a whole is a Perfect Being." 

It may not be out of place in this connection, 
to pass in review Kant's discourse on this subject 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 45 

in his "Transcendental dialectic." * He there 
marshals the various arguments for the existence 
of a Creator, and shows the weakness and in- 
sufficiency of each to meet the assaults of the 
skeptic. He says, "There are only three modes 
of proving the existence of a Creator, on the 
grounds of speculative reason. . . . The 
first is the physico-theological argument, the 
second the cosmological, the third the ontolog- 
ical. More there are not, and more there can- 
not be. I shall show that it is as unsuccessful on 
the one path — the empirical, as on the other — 
the transcendental. ... As regards the 
order in which we must discuss these arguments, 
it will be the reverse of that in which reason, in 
the progress of its development attains to them." 
Kant, therefore, first takes up the Ontological 
argument, which is particularly identified with 
the name of Descartes, and subjects it to a 
searching analysis, and clearly shows that, on 
purely a priori grounds, it is not proof against 
the assaults of the skeptic. In summing up on 
that argument he says, "Whatever be the con- 
tent of our conception of an object, it is neces- 
sary to go beyond it if we wish to predicate ex- 
istence of the object. In the case of sensuous 
objects, this is attained by their connection, ac- 
cording to empirical laws, with some one of my 

i Meiklej ohn's translation. 



46 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

perceptions ; but there are no means of cogniz- 
ing the existence of objects of pure thought, be- 
cause it must be cognized completely a priori." 
He then proceeds to discuss the Cosmological 
argument. "It is framed in the following man- 
ner: — If something exists, an absolutely neces- 
sary being must likewise exist. Now I, at least 
exist, consequently there exists an absolutely 
necessary being. . . . But this merely aids 
reason in making one step — to the existence of 
a necessary being. What the properties of this 
being are cannot be learned. . . . Experi- 
ence being utterly insufficient to demonstrate the 
presence of this attribute (necessary existence) 
in any determinate existence or thing. 
Although the existence of a necessary being were 
admitted we should find it impossible to answer 
the question: — What of all things in the Uni- 
verse must be regarded as such?" 

It will be seen from the above quotations, that 
the Cosmological argument goes no further than 
the recognition of a necessary being leaving un- 
determined whether this being is the Universe or 
something distinct from it. The question of the 
truth or falsity of Pantheism is, therefore, left 
untouched. The physico-theological, or, as it is 
now generally designated, the teleological, or ar- 
gument from design, is next taken up by Kant, 
and shown to be logically inconclusive, though 
worthy of the highest consideration and respect. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 47 

"It is the oldest, the clearest, and that most in 
conformity with the common sense of humanity. 
It animates the study of nature, as it itself de- 
rives its existence and draws ever new strength 
from that source. It introduces aims and ends 
into a sphere in which our observation could not 
of itself have discovered them, and extends our 
knowledge of nature, by directing our attention 
to a unity, the principle of which lies beyond 
nature. This knowledge of nature again reacts 
upon this idea — its cause ; and thus our belief in 
a divine Author of the Universe rises to the 
power of an irresistible conviction. 
But although we have nothing to object to the 
reasonableness and utility of this procedure, but 
have rather to commend and encourage it, we 
cannot approve of the claims which this argu- 
ment advances to demonstrative certainty. . . . 
I maintain, then, that the physico-theological 
argument is insufficient of itself to prove the ex- 
istence of a Creator." 

While Kant thus questioned the powers of the 
human mind to demonstrate the existence of a 
Supreme Being distinct from the Universe, yet 
he was far from being an agnostic in the modern 
sense of the term. Pie again and again asserts 
his earnest conviction of the existence of such a 
Being, and bases his belief on ethical grounds. 

The elevating influence of such a belief upon 
the individual and the race, and the practical 



48 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

results in promoting the well being of mankind 
as a whole, were sufficient in his mind to produce 
conviction. In these latter days there has 
arisen a school of thought, with a very extensive 
following which affects to find in Pantheistic no- 
tions the same stimulus to a just life. In the 
minds of many, therefore, ethical arguments for 
the existence of a Creator have ceased to have 
any weight. 

Independent of all religious considerations the 
subject is one of great intrinsic interest, and of 
transcendent importance to the cause of philos- 
ophy. 

In the introduction of this book it is claimed 
that the theory of evolution necessarily implies 
the prior existence of that which is being 
evolved, that is to say, the material Universe 
must have pre-existed in ideal or spiritual form 
before it became an objective reality. In other 
words, must have existed in the mind (to use the 
only suitable word) of the Being who called it 
into existence. 

Now, if the Universe were the Sole Existence, 
as Pantheism claims, evolution would be impos- 
sible, for the whole is already in material evi- 
dence, and, necessarily, has always been so. 
The human mind, being but a part of this whole, 
cannot in reason predicate such changes in the 
whole as the word evolution implies, without vi- 
olating the axiom "The whole is greater than 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 49 

any of its parts." Pantheism and cosmic evo- 
lution are therefore absolutely contradictory. 
But, if the Universe is a caused thing like man 
himself, it offers a legitimate field of conquest 
for the human mind, and we can entertain the 
idea of cosmic evolution without violating an 
axiomatic truth. 

Aside, however, from the argument based 
upon the theory of evolution, there is another 
method of proving the existence of a Creator, 
and it depends upon the principle already for- 
mulated as the criterion of truth, viz. the con- 
cordance between pure or a priori conceptions 
and the sensuous perception of the external 
world. 

The method is, therefore, both Ontological 
and Cosmological, depending as it does equally 
upon a priori conceptions and a study of the 
phenomena of nature which the possession of 
sense perception enables us to make. 

In his review of the Cosmological argument, 
Kant showed that its strength, in proof of the 
contingent character of the Universe, depended 
upon the law of causality, the fallacious charac- 
ter of which he exposes. This law may be 
briefly stated thus: — Everything which is de- 
pendent has a cause, which, if itself dependent, 
must also have a cause; and so on until a primal 
cause is reached, without which the chain would 
be incomplete. This reasoning contains a peti- 



50 THE UNCAUSED BEING 

tio principii — assumes the very thing to be 
proved. 

The Cosmological argument alone is, there- 
fore, of no conclusive value ; but united with the 
Ontological argument, as enunciated in the prin- 
ciple already formulated as our criterion of 
truth, it acquires new strength. This may be 
called the Onto-cosmological argument. It 
claims to show that the analysis of the external 
world, which the possession of sense percep- 
tion enables us to make, does not justify us in 
maintaining that the material Universe is an ab- 
solutely infinite thing, that, therefore, it is not 
self-subsistent or uncaused, but owes its exist- 
ence to a Being distinct from it in essence. 

Now, from a priori conceptions, we demand 
absolute infinitude to be predicated of an un- 
caused thing. Hence, if in our analysis of the 
external world, antagonism be established be- 
tween this a priori conception and the teaching 
of sense perception, then are we justified in 
maintaining that the corporeal Universe is a 
dependent thing, and not the Uncaused Being 
which we are compelled to posit as existing. 

"To subsist always according to the same, and 
in a similar manner, and to be the same, belongs to 
the most divine of all things alone. But the na- 
ture of body is not of this order." x 

i Plato in the "Statesman." 



CHAPTER III 

PROPOSITIONS 

Prop. I. If anything exists an Uncaused Be- 
ing exists. 

Prop. II. The Uncaused Being, not being de- 
pendent upon any other thing for exist- 
ence is, therefore, absolutely infinite. 

Corollary. There can be but one Uncaused 
Being, all other forms of being must be 
caused or dependent. 

Prop. III. The Uncaused cannot be subjected 
to analysis by a caused thing. The 
caused cannot comprehend the Uncaused, 
i. e., "the whole is greater than any of 
its parts. 9 ' 

Corollary. Growth or development cannot be 
predicated of the Uncaused Being. 

Prop. IV. A caused being cannot determine 
what the Uncaused Being IS, but it can 
determine what the Uncaused Being is 
NOT. 

Prop. V. The material universe cannot be the 
Uncaused Being. 

CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSITIONS 

Prop. I. If anything exists an Uncaused Be- 
ing exists. 
The celebrated Scotch philosopher, David 
51 



52 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

Hume, pointed out the weakness of the argument 
for the existence of a Deity based on the doc- 
trine of causation. 

He clearly showed that, if we regard the Uni- 
verse as an unbroken chain of causes and effects, 
it is illegitimate to assume any definite com- 
mencement of this chain. In other words, he 
held that the mind cannot consistently rest in 
any such thing, as a Primal Cause, for this 
would be an assumption that the Universe had a 
beginning and, therefore, a Beginner — the thing 
to be proved. The law of causality has already 
been quoted in the first chapter, and that it con- 
tains a petitio-principii is very apparent. 

But the criticism of Hume cannot be wielded 
against the proposition announced above. It 
will be observed that the proposition carries with 
it no implication as to the nature of this being, 
and it leaves the question open as to whether the 
Uncaused Being is the Universe or the Author 
of it. It lays down no theory of causation, but 
merely affirms that there must be an Uncaused 
existence if anything exists. The proposition 
is an axiomatic one and cannot be assailed 
by reason. The Pantheist affirms that the 
Universe, considered as a whole, is this Un- 
caused Being, and that the changes which we 
see taking place in the material world about 
us are the transformations going on within the 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 53 

self-centered Cosmos. According to this view 
the Universe is the ultimate reality. 

The Theist, on the other hand, maintains that 
the Universe is dependent, and owes its existence 
to a creative act by a Being which is distinct 
from it in nature. 

Prop. II. The Uncaused Being, not being de- 
pendent upon any other thing for existence is, 
therefore, absolutely infinite. 

If the Uncaused Being be conceived of as 
material or corporeal, i. e., as occupying space, 
an absolutely infinite magnitude must be pred- 
icated of it. An uncaused limited corporeality 
is at once repudiated by the mind. If the Un- 
caused be conceived of as immaterial, power to 
produce or create must be attributed to it; and 
this creating or producing power it must pos- 
sess to an unlimited degree. From this propo- 
sition flows the corollary that there can be but 
One Uncaused Being. As an uncaused thing 
must be absolutely without limitations, it is 
quite impossible that there should be more than 
one absolutely infinite thing; and this holds 
whether we regard it as material or immaterial, 
for, let it be assumed that there are a plurality 
of uncaused things, then, on the supposition 
that they are immaterial, the sphere of activity 
or producing power of each would be limited 



54 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

by the others, and none of them could be re- 
garded as absolutely infinite. Again if ma- 
terial, they would limit one another in magni- 
tude. A plurality of absolutely infinite beings 
is, therefore, a contradiction. From the recog- 
nition of this it follows that all other forms of 
being are caused, derivative or dependent. 

Prop. III. The Uncaused Being cannot be sub- 
jected to analysis by a caused thing. The 
caused cannot comprehend the Uncaused, i. e., 
the whole is greater than any of its parts. 

The truth of this proposition appeals to the 
mind with axiomatic force. From it flows the 
corollary that growth or development cannot be 
predicated of the Uncaused Being. The as- 
sumption of development or any change in the 
essential nature of a thing as a whole, presup- 
poses that the thing under consideration has 
been circumscribed. But the nature of the Un- 
caused is absolutely infinite, and cannot be cir- 
cumscribed or comprehended by that which itself 
has caused, i. e., (i the whole is greater than any 
of its parts." The reader will appreciate the 
significance of this axiom in its relation to Pan- 
theistic Evolution. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 55 

Prop. IV. A caused Being cannot determine 
what the Uncaused Being IS, but it can deter- 
mine what the Uncaused Being is NOT. 
A being which knows itself to have been 
caused can recognize the same dependent nature 
in other things, and this enables it to say with 
the highest certainty that the thing under obser- 
vation is not uncaused. Whilst the human mind 
can resolve the phenomena which the world pre- 
sents into chains of causes and effects, still, on a 
priori considerations alone, it recognizes that it 
cannot circumscribe the whole of Being, for 
"the whole is greater than any of its parts." 
If, therefore, the corporeal universe be the whole 
of Being, that is uncaused, it must forever re- 
main an insoluble enigma. Not necessarily so, 
however, if it be a caused or dependent thing. 

Prop. V. The Universe cannot be the Uncaused 
Being. 

The external world is manifested to our con- 
sciousness as a combination of matter, motion 
and force. Space and time or duration are the 
conditions under which these operate. Matter, 
motion and force are always blended in the pro- 
duction of phenomena. They form an insepa- 
rable triad. 

While physical science teaches that all phe- 
nomena whatsoever are the result of the working 
of this trial as a whole, yet a careful analysis 



56 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

justifies us in giving precedence to matter, the 
substance which supports the other two, and 
without which they could have no existence. In 
other words, motion and force are not to be re- 
garded as entities at all, but merely conditions 
of that which occupies space. 

If we subject to analysis any chain of cause 
and effect, which the Universe presents, we will 
invariably find that matter is the ultimate cause 
which can be reached by experiment; that our 
conception of motion is that of a particle or 
mass of matter in the act of translation from 
one point of space to another, and that our con- 
ception of force is that of a particle or mass 
of matter in motion communicatmg this motion 
to another particle or mass of matter. 

A mass of matter m motion must always be 
followed by the manifestation of force if there 
be another mass of matter to which it can com- 
municate this motion. 

Force is therefore communicated or trans- 
mitted motion. Reducing a chain of cause and 
effect to its ultimate scientific beginning we are 
bound to conceive of matter as initiating it and 
never a force. 

On the supposition that there was a time in 
the history of the material universe when the 
matter of which it is composed was in a quiescent 
state, then we cannot call the Something which 
set it in motion a force, as physical science un- 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 57 

derstands that word; Will manifestation is the 
nearest approach our terminology admits of in 
speaking of such a Something. On the hy- 
pothesis that the matter of which the universe 
consists has always been in motion, then it is 
clear that matter is the ultimate term, motion its 
attribute, and force the transmission or com- 
munication of this motion to other masses of 
matter. This is the force which is known to 
science, nor should anything else receive that 
title. Experimental science must, therefore, al- 
ways regard matter as the ultimate scientific ori- 
gin of all external phenomena — the ultimate 
scientific starting point for every chain of cause 
and effect observable throughout the physical 
universe. If we would attain to sublimer 
heights we must provide ourselves with wings 
other than those which experimental science can 
furnish, with which to soar. These wings are 
supplied by pure or a priori conceptions, the 
concordance existing between which and the 
teachings of sense perceptions being the test for 
truth. 

In the course of this discussion we will en- 
deavor to show that our notions of the universe 
from the empirical standpoint, are reducible to 
our conception of matter undergoing transla- 
tion in space ; and that this matter is not of such 
a magnitude to justify us in attributing to it 
an absolutely infinite character, in other words, 



58 THE UNCAUSED BEING 

that we can conceive the mass of matter enter- 
ing into the constitution of things greater than 
sense perception shows it to be. 

In the following chapter each of the grand 
divisions, space, motion, matter and force, 
which, considered as a whole, constitute the ex- 
ternal world, will be examined, and their claim, 
individually and collectively, to be considered 
the uncaused source of things, carefully weighed. 



CHAPTER IV 
SPACE— MOTION— FORCE— MATTER 



Space may be defined as the absence of matter, 
that is to say, space is a VOID, and therefore 
not an entity or thing. 

The difficulties surrounding the discussion of 
space, motion, force, matter and kindred topics 
are familiar to everyone acquainted with meta- 
physical writings. Such subjects offer a fine 
field for the proverbial verbosity of the pro- 
fessional metaphysicians who, too often, in their 
efforts to elucidate, befog the main issues, which 
thus become lost to view in the mists created by 
their own metaphysical subtleties. 

The celebrated German philosopher, Kant, 
discussing the nature of space says: — "Space 
does not represent to us any determination of 
objects such as attaches to the objects them- 
selves, and would remain, even though all sub- 
jective conditions of the intuition were ab- 
stracted. . . . Space is nothing else than 
the form of all phenomena of the external sense, 
that is, the subjective condition of the sensi- 
bility, under which alone external intuition is 
possible." 

59 



60 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

The student of metaphysics will get much out 
of this, but, it is safe to say, that the individual 
who has no acquaintance with metaphysical 
language will get little or nothing. 

If an ignorant man were asked the question 
"What is space?" he would probably answer: 
"Space is nothing," by which he would mean 
that there is an absence of objects to be seen 
or felt and his answer would be correct. Our 
sense perception teaches us that space is no 
thing, but the absence of things, that is, a 
VOID. 1 

The inability to see the air about it, and 
the consequent ability to see objects gives the 
infant mind its first notion of space. This 
visual knowledge is supplemented by the ab- 
sence of obstructions to motion and the two to- 
gether enable the child to acquire an idea of 
space or a void. 

Space, then, is not an entity or thing, but the 
absence of things. To this, reply might be 
made, "How then does space exist, can nothing 

i "Absolute space in itself and without regard to any- 
thing external, remains eternally the same and immova- 
ble. Relative space is any movable dimension or meas- 
ure of absolute space determined by our senses by the 
position of bodies." 

Sir I. Newton. 
"Space is a relation, an order, not only of existing 
things, but of all those which possibly might exist." 

Leibnitz. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 61 

be said to exist?" This would be a mere play 
on language and gathers around the word ex- 
istence as applied to a void. This verbal diffi- 
culty cannot be surmounted and those disposed 
to quibble will continue to do so. We can only 
define space or a void in its relation to matter, 
and therefore we say that space is the absence 
of matter. As we have defined space as the 
absence of matter, so we may define matter as 
the absence of space. If there were no void or 
space the universe would be a solid mass of mat- 
ter (a continuum), and how human beings, con- 
stituted as they are, could intuit matter with- 
out space as a medium, is a puzzle for those to 
solve who believe that matter is a continuum. 

Nor is space a continuum, for if it were, there 
would be no matter. As the individual atoms 
and groups of atoms are separated by space, so 
the various points of space are separated by 
matter. The separation in the latter case is of 
course not as complete as in the former, for 
space surrounds the atoms and groups of atoms. 
Space is, therefore, continuous, but the exist- 
ence of matter prevents it from being a con- 
tinuum. 

The extent or magnitude of space necessarily 
remains constant so long as the quantity of mat- 
ter remains constant. The destruction of a 
single atom would increase the extent of space 
that much. 



62 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

While we cannot say that space possesses mo- 
tion, not being a thing, yet the movement of the 
atoms is perpetually abolishing and creating 
space (voids), so that the relations between the 
points of space and individual atoms and groups 
of atoms are constantly changing. 

Space is infinite but not absolutely infinite. 
As this statement may cause a question in the 
minds of some who have always regarded one in- 
finity as being necessarily as great as another, 
a little explanation and definition of terms may 
be in order. Those familiar with mathematics 
are aware that mathematicians recognize that 
one infinity can be greater than another. In 
mathematics it is customary to call a line start- 
ing from a fixed point and projected indefi- 
nitely, and therefore endless in one direction, 
an infinite line, but it is clear that such a line 
cannot equal another line projected endlessly 
in both directions. Calling the first infinite, 
we are obliged to call the second absolutely 
infinite, for a greater line cannot be conceived. 
The absolutely infinite must be defined as that 
of which a greater cannot be imagined or con- 
ceived. It is obvious that the first line fails to 
meet this requirement. 

To illustrate further: let two lines, AB and 
AC, be drawn in a plane from a point A in 
that plane (Fig. 1) and extended endlessly. 
The area of the plane embraced by the lines will 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 63 

therefore be infinite. Now increase the size of 
the angle (as in Fig. 2). It is clear that the 

E 





area embraced by the lines AD and AE, exceeds 
that embraced by AB and AC. Now conceive 
of A as a point in a plane which extends bound- 
lessly in all directions ; such a plane would be the 
greatest possible — would be an absolutely in- 
finite plane. Hence we are justified in making 
a distinction between the infinite and the abso- 
lutely infinite, and of defining the absolutely 
infinite as that of which a greater cannot be im- 
agined or conceived. 

Though universal space or void has no geo- 
metrical figure, being without bounding lines, 
yet, for the purpose of exposition, we may liken 
it to a sphere with its center everywhere and sur- 
face nowhere. Space, therefore, would be ab- 
solutely infinite were it not for the existence of 
matter, but the presence of matter destroys its 
absolute character, for where body is, there space 
is not, hence space is not of such a magnitude 
that we cannot imagine a greater. The same 
obtains with regard to matter. It is not abso- 
lutely infinite because space exists. Let it be 



64 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

granted that we could travel forever and still 
find matter floating in the depths of space, it 
would still remain true that we could imagine 
the voids between the atoms and groups of atoms 
completely filled, thus increasing the quantity 
of matter. Matter is, therefore, not absolutely 
infinite. 

It is customary to speak of space as if it were 
a phenomenon (that which appears) of nature, 
but as it is through the absence of appearances 
(phenomena) only that we apprehend the exist- 
ence of space, it is manifestly improper, to be 
strictly accurate, to call it a phenomenon. 
Thus, we can truly say that space is the nega- 
tive and matter the positive of the universe. 
The first negates, the latter affirms the existence 
of beings. 

Plato and Parmenides declared that space was 
non-being, by which they wished to convey the 
idea that space is the absence of material things. 



Motion is matter in the act of changing its 
position in space. 

An atom or group of atoms undergoing trans- 
lation in space manifests the phenomenon called 
motion. It is obvious that were there no space 
(void), motion would be an utter impossibility 
and the universe would be an absolute solid, a 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 65 

solid of such a nature as we now conceive the 
ultimate etheric atom to be. 

As space is the condition of all external 
phenomena, but is in itself no thing, so motion 
is the occasion of all external phenomena, but 
is in itself no thing. Space exists, and yet is 
not entity, so with motion. 

It is said of Heracletus that he taught that 
"everything is motion, and nothing else exists." 
It is probable that he meant by this, that as the 
atoms were in perpetual motion, the word, mo- 
tion, could be used as a synonym for matter it- 
self. 

Pantheism, negating as it does, the idea of 
Creation, asserts that matter has always been in 
motion, and that the universe as we see it, is the 
outcome of this perpetual change of place 
among the atoms which has been going on from 
a beginningless past. From this point of view 
we are to regard the material universe as a mass 
of atoms flowing along the line of infinite dura- 
tion, and their mutual attraction and repulsion 
the occasion of all the phenomena. 

Theism, on the contrary, holding as it does 
the idea of Creation, maintains that the atoms 
were created and that motion was primarily im- 
parted to them by the fiat of Omnipotence. The 
motion so imparted will therefore continue dur- 
ing the pleasure of the Being who called the 
atoms into existence. The Theistic Scientist 



66 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

while recognizing this, also recognizes that mo- 
tion is indestructible in the regular course of 
nature or by man's agency, and he knows that 
its apparent disappearance at one point is al- 
ways followed by the appearance of the same 
quantity of motion at other points. Thus when 
two bodies come into collision, both may be 
brought to a dead stop. The ignorant man 
might declare that here is an example of the 
destruction of motion, but the scientific man 
knows that the loss of motion exhibited by the 
bodies is only apparent; that mass motion has 
been converted into molecular motion, and that, 
if all this motion manifested as heat, could be 
collected, it would equal in amount the motion 
of the bodies before the collision. From this 
fact has been deduced the well known law of the 
"conservation of energy," which may very 
properly be worded in terms of motion ; for, as 
we shall see later on, energy or force is nothing 
more than motion communicated by one atom or 
group of atoms to another atom or group of 
atoms. 



Force is transmitted motion, or motion com- 
municated by an atom or group of atoms to an- 
other atom or group of atoms. 

That which has not for its cause a prior state 
of motion cannot be empirically apprehended. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 67 

A mass or particle of matter in motion must al- 
ways precede the manifestation of force. If 
there were but one mass of matter in existence, 
motion could not be transmitted, and, hence, 
force could have no existence. That force is 
definable only as transmitted or communicated 
motion becomes very clear when we consider that 
empirically we have no basis to work on where 
matter does not exist. Any definition of force 
that does not clearly recognize a prior state of 
matter in motion as the starting point is de- 
fective. 

"Matter is not a go-cart, to and from which 
force, like a horse, can be now harnessed, now 
loosed," says Dubois-Raymond. 

"Force without matter is not a reality, and 
both by their union have made the world and all 
its phenomena," says Spiller. 

"Force without matter has no independent ex- 
istence," says Cornelius. 

While all these definitions recognize the in- 
separability of matter and force, yet, from their 
wording, it is still left ambiguous how we are 
to conceive of force — whether it is to be re- 
garded as an entity in itself united to matter, 
or whether it is merely a condition of matter. 
That it is merely a condition resulting from mat- 
ter in motion becomes apparent when we attempt 
to conceive of force abstracted from matter or 
preceding it in a sequence of cause and effect. 



68 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

On the supposition that there was a time in 
the history of the universe when the matter of 
which it is composed was in a state of quiescence, 
then the Something which disturbed this equilib- 
rium of rest cannot be designated a force as 
the scientist uses that term. Such a Something 
would have no affinity to the force known to 
science as such. Spontaneous Will Power is the 
only phrase which could describe such a mani- 
festation, a wholly different thing from the force 
of the scientist which always possesses a material 
background. 

Our idea, then, of force, when reduced to its 
lowest terms, is nothing more than transmitted 
motion, and presupposes the prior existence of 
matter in motion. 

The well known law of the "correlation and 
conservation of force," the establishment of 
which is reckoned among the triumphs of 
modern science, might more properly be stated 
in terms of matter in motion. The phrase, the 
indestructibility of matter and the perpetuity 
of its original motion, really embodies the same 
ideas. The inseparability of force and moving 
matter enables us all the better to appreciate the 
fact that every kind of motion has its counter- 
part in a force of a similar nature. Thus we 
have mass motions and mass forces. 

The course of the earth in its orbit, and of a 
stone through the air, are familiar examples of 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 69 

the first. Heat, light, electricity, magnetism, 
chemical affinity and vitality are examples of the 
second. Mass motions and forces, and molecu- 
lar motions and forces are mutually convertible. 
Familiar instances of the conversion of molecu- 
lar energy into mass energy are seen in the pro- 
jectile forced from the cannon's mouth by the 
explosion of gunpowder, and the propulsion of 
the steam engine by the use of coal and water. 
The chemical forces accompanying the digestion 
and assimilation of food are converted into vital 
force at work in building up the tissues, which 
in turn is converted into mass motion and forces, 
manifested in the movements of the body, and 
the physical force which it exercises on other 
bodies. All these motions and forces, mass and 
molecular, can be traced back to the sun, the 
great storehouse of physical energy. 

Force, then, is not an entity associated with 
matter but merely a resultant of matter in mo- 
tion. Being merely a condition consequent upon 
moving matter, force cannot be the Uncaused 
Being after which we are seeking. 

When we designate by the name of force the 
Something which originally set the matter of 
the universe in motion (assuming that it has 
not always been in motion ) , we apply the term to 
that which is totally different, scientifically con- 
sidered, from the force which we see around us 
in nature. On the assumption that the matter 



70 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

of the universe has always been in motion, then, 
it is clear that all force is nothing more than 
the communication of motion from one mass of 
matter to another in a begirmingless and end- 
less sequence. 

As already shown we have no empirical knowl- 
edge of any force which is not communicated 
motion. Any attempt, therefore, to identify 
force with matter necessarily leads to error. 
For it is plain that even were we to define matter 
as force which impresses us as occupying space 
we would still be no nearer the truth, and the 
wide distinction between this space-occupying 
force and the force induced by it would be lost 
sight of. Two widely different things would 
thus be confounded, much to the injury of 
philosophy. It is, therefore, wholly unscientific 
to give that which impresses us as occupying 
space any other name than matter, retaining the 
word, force, to designate the motion communi- 
cated from an atom or group of atoms to an- 
other atom or group of atoms. To the man, 
then, who denies the existence of a Creator, the 
Universe of Being is resolvable down to matter 
in ceaseless motion as the ultimate thing. 

MATTER 

Matter is something which impresses us as 
occupying space, or, better still, matter is the 
absence of space. 

The definition may be worded either way, but 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 71 

the latter phrase is less ambiguous, for it carries 
with it unmistakably the idea to be conveyed, 
that where matter is, there space (a void) can- 
not be. 

We take congnizance of matter by the re- 
sistance which it offers to touch (mass resist- 
ance), and to hearing, sight, smell and taste 
(molecular resistance). These are the avenues 
which bring the Ego (and by the Ego is under- 
stood self-consciousness) into relation with the 
outer world; which, in other words, enables the 
Ego to recognize the existence of such an outer 
world. 

All known forms of matter are embraced in 
the tables of elementary substances laid down 
in our text books on chemistry. They are called 
elements, for as yet they have not been resolved 
into simpler forms, with the possible exception 
of Radium. For a long time there has been a 
feeling among chemists that all the so-called ele- 
ments are really compounds, and may be resolved 
eventually into something simpler. Even the 
notion of transmutation, so tenaciously held by 
the alchemists of the middle ages, has been re- 
juvenated, and many scientific men are of the 
opinion that it will be realized some day. 

If there be a universal substance from which 
the so-called elements have arisen by some un- 
known process, then we must regard the smallest 
particles of these elementary bodies as mole- 



72 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

cules or groupings of the atoms of some sub- 
stance still simpler. 

It has been suggested that the ether may be 
this common substance. This mysterious and 
subtle something, the source of light, heat, elec- 
tricity and magnetism, is believed to pervade uni- 
versal space and to interpenetrate all bodies. If 
the ether is the common substance, the parent 
of all tangible bodies, we are then called upon to 
regard it as consisting of particles, indivisible 
and incompressible, the etheric atoms; or to view 
it as a continuum, that is without pores or vacui- 
ties, and therefore without parts. If the latter 
view be maintained then space is annihilated. 
Space is the absence of matter, and if matter be 
continuous (without vacuities) and infinitely ex- 
tended in all directions it is obvious that space 
can have no existence, and we must regard the 
ether as an infinite corporeality. 

That the ether is a continuum, and the uni- 
verse a plenum (absolutely full) of it, is the view 
held by Professor Lodge and others. The ap- 
pendix to this volume is devoted to an examina- 
tion of this theory and its logical consequences. 
The reader is referred to it for the arguments in 
refutation. 

Assuming that the ether is the ultimate form 
of matter, and that the etheric atoms are the 
parents of all the so-called elementary bodies, we 
are then obliged to conceive of it as denser in 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 73 

some places than in others; that, for instance, 
there are more etheric atoms in a cubic inch of 
iron than in a cubic inch of air. In other words, 
that the vacuities separating the ultimate etheric 
atoms are larger and more numerous in a gas 
like nitrogen or oxygen than in a metal like iron. 
Space, then, both interatomic and interstellar, 
does really exist, and the bulk of matter in the 
universe is limited by it, and cannot, therefore, 
be regarded as absolutely infinite, however ex- 
tended it may be throughout the celestial sphere. 
Indeed, the quantity of matter in the universe 
compared with space is insignificant. Space is 
a necessary condition of motion. If the uni- 
verse were a continuous mass of matter, such as 
we now conceive the atom to be, all motion 
would be impossible. It is inconceivable that 
motion can take place in a continuum, Profes- 
sor Lodge to the contrary notwithstanding. 
This truth was recognized by the early philoso- 
phers, and Lucretius, in "De Natura rerum" 
pointed out that if there were no void spaces in 
the universe, motion would be impossible. But 
if there are void spaces in the universe, then 
matter is not of such a magnitude that we can- 
not conceive of a greater. 

Matter, then, is a limited thing — limited by 
space — and is utterly incapable of fulfilling our 
definition of an absolutely infinite thing. 1 To 

i Some critic may advance the plea that as space is 



74 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

ascribe independent or uncaused existence to 
matter is to establish antagonism between a 
priori conceptions on the one hand, and sense 
perception on the other. A priori conceptions 
demand that we attribute absolute infinitude to 
that which has no cause, and sense perception 
declares that what we call matter cannot be an 
infinite corporeality. Hence the material uni- 
verse cannot be regarded as the Uncaused Be- 
ing. 

But the postulate laid down by pure reason 
that "if anything exists an Uncaused Being ex- 
ists" still confronts us, and from its unassail- 
able position of apodictic certainty demands rec- 
ognition. 1 

not a thing, it is evident that matter is limited by noth- 
ing and is therefore unlimited or absolutely infinite. The 
play on words would constitute the whole strength of 
such a criticism. 

i Materialists in their efforts to give a semblance of 
probability to their notions of the universe, have resorted 
to the subterfuge of endowing the atom with a quasi 
psychic character. 

The pyknatoms of Haeckel, referred to in the intro- 
duction of this book, though they correspond in general 
to the atoms recognized by the ordinary scientist, differ 
from them, in that they are credited with sensation and 
inclination, or Will power of the simplest form, "with 
souls, in a certain sense." "These atoms with souls do 
not float in empty space, but in the continuous, extremely 
attenuated intermediate substance, which represents the 
uncondensed portion of primitive matter." 

"The two fundamental forms of substance, ponderable 
matter and ether, are not dead and only moved by ex- 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 75 

trinsic force, but they are endowed with sensation and 
Will (though of the lowest grade) : they experience an 
inclination for condensation, a dislike of strain: they 
strive after the one and struggle against the other." 

"The shade of inclination, from complete indifference 
to the fiercest passion, is exemplified in the chemical re- 
lations of various elements towards each other." 

The above quotations show the nature of the views 
now very prevalent among Materialists of the present 
day. That they are borrowed from the "Monadology" of 
the celebrated Leibnitz, and not improved in the borrow- 
ing, is clearly indicated by a few quotations from the 
work of Leibnitz, translated by Dr. Hedge. 

"The Monad is a simple substance without parts. They 
are the atoms of nature." 

"There is no possibility of their dissolution naturally, 
nor could they have begun to be naturally." 

"Therefore the Monad can only begin by Creation, and 
end by annihilation by Deity." 

"A Monad cannot be altered or changed (naturally) 
by external influences." 

"Monads must have qualities or they would not be 
entities." 

"Each Monad must differ from every other." 

"Each Monad is subject to change, but the change 
starts from within and is continual." 

"This tendency to change may be called perception, 
which is not conscious, thus being distinguished from 
apperception or consciousness." 

"The internal principle which causes perception may be 
called appetition, appetite or desire (i. e. attraction)." 

"Monads that have memory may be called souls." 

"Memory gives to the Monad Soul a kind of consecu- 
tive action which imitates reason." 

"The cognition of necessary and eternal truths is that 
which distinguishes us from mere animals. It is this 
which gives us reason and science, and raises us to the 
knowledge of ourselves and God." 

"The final reason of things must be found in a neces- 
sary substance, This supreme substance is One and 



76 THE UNCAUSED BEING 

necessary, incapable of limits, and must contain as much 
of reality as is possible; and since nothing can hinder 
the possibility of that which has no bounds, no negative, 
and no contradiction, that alone is sufficient to establish 
the existence of a God a priori. Also the existence of 
God is proved a posteriori by showing that, since con- 
tingent beings exist, they can have their ultimate and 
sufficient reason only in some necessary Being, who con- 
tains the reason of His existence in himself." 

"God alone is the primitive unity, or the simple, original 
substance of which all the Created monads are the 
products." 

It will be seen from the above quotations that the 
souls with which Leibnitz endows his monads, correspond 
to the laws which all modern Theistic writers recognize 
as governing the atoms in their relations to one another. 

The wide distinction between the views of Leibnitz and 
those of Haeckel is very clear. The Monads of Leibnitz 
are Created things; the pyknatoms of Haeckel are self 
existent, uncaused realities. There is a family likeness 
between them and the "Eaches" described in the second 
chapter of this book. 

Sir Oliver Lodge, commenting on Haeckel's views, well 
says: "Thus, then, in order to explain life and mind and 
consciousness by means of matter, all that is done is to 
assume that matter possesses these unexplained attributes. 
. . . This is not science and its formulation gives no 
sort of conception of what life and will, and consciousness 
really are. It recognizes the inexplicable and relegates it 
to the atoms, where it seems to hope that further quest 
may cease. Instead of tackling the difficulty where it 
actually occurs; instead of associating life, will and con- 
sciousness with the organisms in which they are actually 
found, these ideas are foisted into the atoms of matter; 
and then the properties which have been conferred on the 
atoms are denied to the fully developed organisms which 
these atoms help to compose." 



CHAPTER V 

CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNCAUSED 
BEING 

As it is fully in accord with the demands of 
reason that a caused being might be endowed 
with powers sufficient to compass all other 
caused beings whatsoever, so, in the same meas- 
ure, is it a violation of reason to assume that 
caused being can circumscribe or comprehend 
Uncaused Being. This truth naturally flows 
from the axiom, "The whole is greater than any 
of its parts.* 9 As reason demands that there 
should be an Uncaused Existence, and as sense 
perception and reason unite in declaring their 
inability to identify such a Being with the corpo- 
real universe, it becomes apparent that the 
powers of man are limited to a mere apprehen- 
sion of Its existence. 

But the apprehension of the existence of a 
thing is unavoidably accompanied by an at- 
tempt to picture in the mind or to formulate 
into words some conception of the thing appre- 
hended. As it is the verdict of reason that 
Uncaused Being cannot be comprehended by 
that which Itself has caused, it is obvious that 
all such pictures or formula? are but expressions 
77 



78 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

of an aspiration toward a goal which is abso- 
lutely unattainable. 

In formulating our ideas of the Uncaused 
source of things we must be guided by what we 
conceive to be the highest thing known to us, the 
known attributes of such a thing serving to 
mark out the direction of the line which aspir- 
ing thought must travel in its efforts to form a 
conception of Uncaused Existence. 

The mind of man with its wondrous powers 
presents to us the highest form of dependent ex- 
istence, hence in forming a conception of Nou- 
menal or Uncaused Existence, our only resource 
is to study the phenomena presented by the 
human mind. 

Language, which enables us to express our 
ideas, possesses certain words descriptive of 
human attributes, and every qualifying term has 
its opposite — intelligence implies unintelligence ; 
conscious, unconscious; personal, impersonal; 
design, chance; good, evil; wisdom, folly or 
ignorance, etc. 

The first terms of this series are the positive 
elements; the second, the negative. If we are 
to formulate any conception of the author of 
our being we should make use of the positive 
terms of this series of adjectives rather than the 
negative, but so qualified as to take them beyond 
the bounds of all limitations. Thus, we can 
use the words infinite, absolute, or super, and 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 79 

this will serve to distinguish the attributes of 
man from those of the Uncaused source of 
things. 

Both Schopenhauer and Von Hartman selected 
the negative in preference to the positive of 
these terms, and the reason is not far to seek. 
They were anxious to remove themselves as far 
as possible from popular ideas of religion, and 
thus ran into the absurdity of using language 
which detracted from the dignity of the sub- 
ject of which they were treating. 

The Will of Schopenhauer ( The world as Will 
and Idea) is an unconscious something, and Von 
Hartman, a close disciple, entitles his own sys- 
tem the "Philosophy of the Unconscious." It 
is not surprising that both held pessimistic views 
of the nature of things. 

Schopenhauer declared "it is the worst of all 
possible worlds," and Von Hartman was a close 
second in his affirmation that while "it is the 
best of all possible worlds, it is worse than none 
at all." 

There is not much to choose from in these 
statements. Both philosophers have had and 
still have a tremendous following in Germany, 
and many ardent admirers in the United States. 

THE UNCAUSED BEING AS A PERSONALITY 

The word personality, as ordinarily used, 
carries with it the notion of embodied limita- 



80 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

tion, hence the objection which has been urged 
against ascribing personality to the Uncaused. 

But that which has no personality we regard 
as impersonal. Now, as we are compelled to 
make use of one or the other of these words in 
speaking of the Uncaused source of things, our 
choice of terms must be determined by the dig- 
nity of the conception suggested by the word. 
That which possesses personality is, by com- 
mon consent, considered higher in the scale of 
being than an impersonal thing. The one is an 
individual in which all the parts bear a coherent 
relation to the whole, the other is an incoherent 
mass. What the crystal is to the same matter 
in an amorphous (without form) state, that 
personality is to impersonality. 

Furthermore, when we carefully analyze our 
notion of personality we find that the word pos- 
sesses other and higher meanings, meanings 
which peculiarly fit it as a descriptive term of 
the Uncaused source of things, and which do 
not necessarily carry with them ideas of em- 
bodiment and limitation. 

The personality or individuality of a thing is 
measured by the qualities which are peculiar to 
it, and by its independence. The more charac- 
teristic its attributes and complete its independ- 
ence, the greater does its personality become. 
To render this clear to the mind we have but to 
turn to external nature and trace the gradual 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 81 

growth of individuality from the amorphous in- 
organic to the highest form of the organic. In 
man personality reaches its highest expression 
among terrestial things. A heap of sand pos- 
sesses little or no individuality as compared with 
a crystal with its geometrical figure and planes 
of cleavage. A lump of charcoal has a less de- 
gree of individuality than the diamond. The 
machine, with its nicely adjusted parts of wheels 
and levers, possesses a higher degree of individ- 
uality than a confused heap of iron wheels. 
There is but little distinction among the leaves 
of the same tree or among the blades of the same 
species of grass. In the lower walks of crea- 
tion individuality exists only to a noticeable de- 
gree among species, and among individuals of 
the same specie but few distinctions can be 
traced. Continuing up the scale of being, the 
higher we ascend the greater become the pecul- 
iarities which distinguish individuals of the same 
species one from the other; and the highest in- 
dividuality or personality is reached in man. 

Again, there -are fewer distinguishing traits 
among savages than among civilized men, and 
among civilized men personality reaches its 
maximum with those individuals who are marked 
off as men of genius. 

Thus the higher we mount in the scale of be- 
ing the greater does personality become as meas- 
ured by peculiarities of attributes. Further, if 



82 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

we analyze our notion of personality as meas- 
ured by the independence or freedom of the in- 
dividual, the same truth impresses itself upon us. 
In the inorganic and vegetable kingdoms voli- 
tion or personal independence of action is ab- 
solutely nil; and so faintly is it manifested in 
the lower orders of the animal kingdom that we 
are scarcely justified in ascribing personal voli- 
tion to the animal creation until quite a height 
has been reached on the tree of life. The higher 
we climb the more does personal volition enter as 
a factor in the life of the animal, rendering it 
more and more capable of extending the limits 
of its environment. In man this personal voli- 
tion reaches its maximum ; for he covers the face 
of the habitable globe, and intellectually has 
brought himself into relation with some of the 
most hidden of nature's processes. He has even 
passed the limits of the terrestrial sphere, seek- 
ing in the abysses of space other worlds to study. 
With the growth of intelligence environment is 
widened, and freedom of action becomes more 
and more marked. The lowest savage in his 
manner of life, and in the degree of his depend- 
ence, reminds us of the higher brutes. As his 
intelligence grows this enslavement to nature be- 
comes less and less, and volition in modifying 
environment, becomes more and more conspic- 
uous. This extended freedom is rendered still 
more apparent when we remember that he makes 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 83 

use of these same natural forces to neutralize 
their effects upon himself, thus converting the 
devastating powers of nature into beneficent 
allies to further his advancement. This grow- 
ing freedom from natural bonds, so conspicuous 
in his material progress, is equally conspicuous 
in his increasing moral freedom, or freedom 
from the enslavement of personal appetites. 

Man, in the Mass, is becoming more and 
more an intellectual being, and less and less de- 
pendent upon the lower elements of his nature 
for happiness and pleasure. The power of dis- 
criminating between right and wrong, accord- 
ing to some accepted standard, initiated the first 
step in moral freedom. 

The imperative Ought, now came to be used 
among men, and its introduction opened up 
vistas in moral progress which the most enthu- 
siastic altruistic of the century cannot see the 
limit of. 

Whatsoever philosophical views a man may 
hold concerning the system of nature and his 
place in it, he is morally bound to give this word 
recognition, and to regard himself, in the prac- 
tical conduct of his life, as a free agent. 

We believe man to be at the summit of terres- 
trial creation, and in our ascent to him through 
the various grades of the animal kingdom, the 
more do we see fulfilled the requirements of the 
definition of personality which has been given. 



84 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

Thus by gradual steps do we rise to the ap- 
prehension that Perfect personality can alone 
reside in the Uncaused, for He alone possesses 
absolute independence and attributes which no 
dependent form of being can possess. 

THE UNCAUSED AS A SELF-CONSCIOUS BEING 

One of our highest attributes is that of self 
consciousness. We know that we exist, and 
from this knowledge is suspended all other 
knowledge. That which is unconscious of its 
own existence is regarded, and very justly, as 
far beneath a self conscious being in dignity. 
The lowest forms of animal life, the vegetable 
kingdom, the earth itself, are wanting in this at- 
tribute. At least so we believe, and no seriously 
minded man would for a moment hold the con- 
trary. This attribute is not confined to man, 
however, and the highest forms of the brute cre- 
ation undoubtedly possess it. Where to draw 
the line between the conscious and the uncon- 
scious members of the animal kingdom would in- 
deed be impossible, but we can safely hazard the 
opinion that the simple forms which constitute 
so large a portion of the animal kingdom, are 
destitute of this attribute. As we rise in the 
scale of being, the attribute of self conscious- 
ness becomes more and more developed, until it 
reaches its climax in man. We are thus led to 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 85 

place the stamp of inferiority upon that which 
is unconscious of its own existence. 

Hence, the utter hollowness of Schopenhauer's 
system is at once apparent. In the blind long- 
ings of his unconscious will we see the universe 
come into being and with it consciousness. 1 But 
can the stream rise higher than its source ? Can 
the conscious have its ultimate origin in the un- 
conscious? 

Schopenhauer calls upon us to reverse com- 
pletely the notions of superiority and inferiority. 
The world is to be literally turned upside down. 
Without attempting to define the nature of self 
consciousness, it is enough to know that all well 
balanced minds agree in calling that inferior 
which does not possess it. Now, as we are log- 
ically bound to regard as superior to ourselves 
the first cause of things, it is evident that con- 
sistency requires that we should not regard this 
Being as unconscious, but should view it along 
the line which consciousness points out. We 
must look up, not down. While the condition 
known to the human mind as self consciousness 
is wholly insufficient to express the absolute self 

i The Will as thing in itself, constitutes the inner, true 
and indestructible nature of man. In itself, however, it 
is unconscious. For consciousness is conditioned by the 
intellect, and the intellect is a mere accident of our being, 
for it is a function of the brain. 

ScHOPEKHAVEtt — "The World as Will and Idea." 



86 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

consciousness of Uncaused Being, yet, by the 
use of the term, we are saved from the great er- 
ror of detracting from the dignity of the Sub- 
ject by the use of another term which carries 
with it the notion of inferiority. 

THE UNCAUSED AS A SUPER-INTELLIGENT 
BEING 

The attribute of intelligence, or that power 
which enables us to discriminate the impressions 
received from without, and to appreciate the re- 
lations subsisting among the phenomena of the 
world; to call up new images by the formation 
of new combinations, in a word, the inductions 
and deductions of the mind, we regard, and re- 
gard justly, as another of our higher attributes. 
Intelligence or thought, therefore, in its nature 
implies the prior existence of things and the 
externality and independence of the things in re- 
lation to the thinker. The difficulty of ascribing 
intelligence, so defined, to the Uncaused Being 
is obvious at a glance. 

Prior to all else, He and He alone existed, 
self-centered in his own self-sufficiency. Shall 
we then conceive of the Uncaused as Unintelli- 
gent? By so doing we at once confound Him 
with the lower creation, and thus run into the 
deplorable error of detracting from his dignity ; 
and our conception, instead of being more ex- 
alted than ourselves, sinks to a level lower than 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 87 

ourselves. Here, then, we are impaled on one 
of the horns of a dilemma. By ascribing intel- 
ligence to the Supreme we lay ourselves open to 
the charge of anthropomorphism; on the other 
hand by speaking of the Supreme as unintelli- 
gent, our conception is powered. We can avoid 
the difficulty only by prefixing the word abso- 
lute or super to the term intelligence. So qual- 
ified, the limitations implied by the "term, intelli- 
gence, are removed. 

Caused or dependent intelligence, and Un- 
caused or absolute intelligence, differ from one 
another in the same degree ftiat dependent being 
differs from Uncaused or Absolute Being — as 
finitude differs from infinitude. This artifice 
in the use of words prevents us from falling 
into the error of confounding the Uncaused Be- 
ing with what we regard as the inferior part of 
the world. 

THE UNCAUSED BEING AS A DESIGNING POWER 1 

The analysis of our conception of any pro- 
ducing or causative power resolves itself into our 
conception of law and design. Our conception 
of law is that of a power working through ne- 
cessity; our conception of design is that of a 
power working through choice or spontaneity. 

A designing power may, law must act. 

i Rewritten from the author's work, "Evolution versus 
Involution." 



88 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

Design implies forethought or intent, a pre- 
conceived end to be attained, and the adaptation 
of means to the accomplishment of this end. 
Man's relation to his fellows and to the lower 
world furnishes us with the type of a designing 
power. 

The word design, carries with it another very- 
important implication, viz. spontaneity or free- 
dom. It is this element in the content of the 
word which renders it peculiarly fitting as a de- 
scriptive term of the acts of the Uncaused Be- 
ing. 

The human mind in its study of nature dis- 
covered the truth that the adaptation of means 
to the accomplishment of ends was not an attri- 
bute peculiar to itself, but that a similar method 
of procedure obtained in the processes of the 
lower creation. The contemplation of the beau- 
tiful adaptations of means to ends observable in 
all nature's ways has furnished to philosophy, 
science and literature their most brilliant pro- 
ductions. But it never occurs to anyone to 
attribute to nature Self-consciousness in bring- 
ing these adaptations about. They are regarded 
by all classes of thinkers as the operations of 
law working in or on the material universe. To 
one class of thinkers, the prevalence of law im- 
plies the existence of a Law-Maker. By another 
class these laws are regarded as the necessary 
and unvarying sequence of the phenomena which 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 89 

nature presents. With the former, law is the 
Agent of a self-conscious overruling power: 
with the latter, law becomes a necessary attribute 
of matter itself. 

It will be observed that in both these concep- 
tions of law the notion of necessity enters as an 
all important factor. Our idea of law, then, 
from whatsoever source obtained, is that of a 
causative power workmg through necessity. 

We are now called upon to consider whether 
our conception of what we call law in external 
nature is inferior to our conception of what we 
call design in ourselves. 

The study of nature demonstrates that its 
phenomena are suspended one from another, 
forming an endless chain ( as far as we can prac- 
tically determine) of cause and effect, and the 
whole cause of a thing becomes a law unto that 
thing. Our idea of law is, then, as already 
stated, that of a causative power working 
through necessity. As natural causes present us 
with an apparently endless chain it is obvious 
that, empirically, we can never arrive at the no- 
tion of an uncaused cause. But looking in upon 
ourselves, the conscious power of volition to act 
or not to act, to come or to go, engenders within 
us a notion of spontaneity which external na- 
ture cannot supply. With the savage and su- 
perstitious, spontaneity is indeed ascribed to the 
powers of nature, but the notion is but a reflex 



90 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

of what they are conscious of in themselves. 
Thus by the recognition of our own conscious 
freedom we arrive at an apprehension of the pos- 
sible existence of an Uncaused Causative power. 
Now, as an uncaused thing must be greater than 
that which is caused, and as our idea of law is 
of something that is caused or necessitated by 
something else, it is obvious that the word de- 
sign, which carries with it the notion of spon- 
taneity or freedom, should be applied to the 
methods of the Uncaused source of things in 
preference to any other word which our vocabu- 
lary affords. In a word, our conception of de- 
sign is higher than our conception of law in the 
same measure that freedom is higher than com- 
pulsion. 1 

SUMMARY 

Having satisfied ourselves that there is an 
Uncaused Being to whom all things owe their 
origin, it becomes our bounden duty to contem- 
plate this Being with reverential awe. But in 
order to contemplate, some attempt must be 
made to embody a conception. In forming this 
conception we must first determine which are our 

i The vexed question of freedom of the will need not 
trouble us here. We are dealing with conceptions, and no 
one can deny that we at least possess the notion of spon- 
taneity or freedom, and that it has been acquired from 
our internal consciousness. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 91 

highest conceptions. Having done this, we 
clothe this Being with these attributes, but so 
qualified as to take them beyond the sphere of 
all limitations. 

We are therefore to think of this Being as 
Personal, not as Impersonal; as Intelligent, not 
as Unintelligent; as Conscious, not as Uncon- 
scious ; as a free or spontaneous Causative 
Power, not as an Inexorable Necessity (our no- 
tions of which have been derived from the action 
of Law in nature) which must act, and which is 
not conscious of the results of its own actions. 

But having done all this, having stretched our 
limited faculties to their highest bent, we may 
still recognize that we have fallen infinitely short 
of the Great Reality. But He who laid the 
foundations of the Universe, and prescribed the 
limits thereof will not judge His creatures for 
the limitations which He Himself has fixed. 

The Uncaused Being has been designated by 
various titles, according to age and nation. 
They all denote some attribute of excellence, 
such as Creator, Overruling Power, Permanence, 
Goodness, etc. 

Among the Hebrews, Jehovah signified the 
Permanent Being; Deus with the Latins, the 
Shining One; Theos, among the Greeks, Crea- 
tive Power. 

Our word, GOD, is the same as the Anglo- 



92 THE UNCAUSED BEING 

Saxon word for good. Whether or not this is 
the origin of the word, it is most fitting. 

In the Hebrew Scriptures we are told that He 
called Himself, I AM THAT I AM. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN ITS 

RELATION TO THE PRESENT 

DISCUSSION 

The doctrine of evolution teaches that the ma- 
terial universe is undergoing alternate periods of 
evolution and dissolution. 1 The evolution now 
going on will be succeeded by a period of disso- 
lution in which the matter entering into the con- 
stitution of things will be resolved into gas and 
dissipated throughout space. When the worlds 
of space have undergone this transformation, 
another period of evolution will set in with the 
result of bringing forth a new universe. 

The mind of man has thus attempted to cir- 
cumscribe the universe of material being. Now, 
on the supposition that the Universe is itself the 
Uncaused Being, what are the implications of 
all this? Man is a dependent being and owes 
his existence to the Uncaused Source of things, 
which, on the above supposition, is the material 
universe. We are thus called upon to contem- 
plate and to accept the astounding proposition 

i The theory, of course, does not hold that these changes 
affect the whole material universe at once; evolution may- 
be in progress at one point, while dissolution is taking 
place at another. 



94 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

that the Uncaused can be subjected to analysis 
and circumscribed by that which is dependent 
upon IT for existence, and to ignore the self- 
evident truth that "the whole is greater than any 
of its parts." Man being but a part cannot, in 
reason, predicate growth or development of the 
whole. As well might a blood corpuscle circu- 
lating in the vessels speculate upon the nature 
of the whole man. Any theory of evolution 
which embraces the entire universe cannot be 
consistently entertained by the mind which re- 
gards the universe as an Uncaused Existence. 
Pantheistic Evolution is antagonistic to the a 
priori conception that "the whole is greater than 
any of its parts. 9 * But the philosophy that 
looks upon the universe as a caused thing, meets 
with no such difficulties in the adoption of the 
theory of evolution. Like man himself, the uni- 
verse is but a creature, and the human intellect 
in attempting to weigh and measure it, finds in 
the undertaking a legitimate sphere for the ex- 
ercise of its powers. It sees in the phases which 
the universe assumes the expression of the Su- 
preme WILL, and is careful not to confound the 
manifestation of this will, as expressed in the 
phenomenal universe, with the essential nature of 
the Being who exercises the will. The theory 
of evolution has now a coherent basis upon 
which to rest. 

Scientifically, evolution may be defined as the 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 95 

unfolding of cause into effect ; and, by the light 
of Theistic philosophy, this definition merges 
into the transcendental definition, that Evolution 
is the unfolding of the Will of the Uncaused 
Being. 

Thus evolution, properly interpreted, finds its 
ally in that system of philosophy which teaches 
that the universe is a created thing, and that the 
Being who called it into existence is distinct from 
it in nature. 

THE ETHER 

An Examination of the Views of Sir Oliver 
Lodge Concerning the Ether of Space. 

The existence of an etherical substance ex- 
tending throughout space, and penetrating the 
interstices of all bodies, has been long accepted 
by science. It is recognized as the medium by 
which light, heat, electricity, magnetism, and 
perhaps, gravitation are manifested. As de- 
fined by the distinguished mathematician and 
physicist, James Clark Maxwell, "Ether is a 
material substance of a more subtle kind than 
visible bodies, supposed to exist in those parts of 
space which are apparently empty." In this 
very conservative definition there is no attempt 
to define the intimate constitution of the ether, 
much less to regard it as the parent of the ele- 
mentary substances known to the chemist, and 
which go to make up all known bodies. Con- 



96 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

siderably more than three score of these ele- 
mentary substances are now set down in our 
text books on chemistry. All efforts to resolve 
these into simpler substances have failed, hence 
we recognize atoms of gold, silver, iron, copper, 
hydrogen, etc. The different combinations of 
the various atoms go to make up the visible 
world as we know it. 

The word atom signifies that which is indivisi- 
ble and incompressible, the smallest particle of 
matter, hence the use of the word to designate 
the chemical elements. The word molecule, on 
the other hand serves to distinguish the various 
combinations of the atoms. We speak of a 
molecule of sodium chloride because it can be 
broken or resolved into the atoms of chlorine and 
sodium, but when we attempt to resolve the so- 
dium and the chlorine all efforts fail. But the 
time may come when the chemist may be able to 
break up or resolve what are now regarded as 
the simple elements, and then we will be obliged 
to consider as a molecule what is now called an 
atom of gold, and so with the rest of the so- 
called elementary bodies. Many scientific men 
believe that there is an ultimate substance from 
which all others are derived. This notion found 
expression in the efforts of the old alchemists to 
transmute one substance into another, and in 
quite recent times it is claimed that radium under- 
goes dissolution into other substances. If it be 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 97 

true that there is one common substance from 
which all other substances are derived then the 
word "atom" as applied to the smallest particles 
of gold, silver, iron, etc., is a misnomer; they 
are nothing more than molecules or combinations 
of the atoms of the ultimate form of matter. 
Our conception of an atom is that of a cont'm- 
uum (that is, without pores), and the point in 
space which it occupies, a plenum (that is, abso- 
lutely full). Sir Oliver Lodge and others have 
advanced the theory that the ether is the ultimate 
form of matter, and that the visible universe is 
due to certain modifications of this substance to 
which they give the name of "Electrons." They 
hold that the ether is a continuum, that is, with- 
out pores or interstices, and that universal space 
is therefore a plenum — absolutely full, without a 
break in its continuity. In other words a solid 
so dense that "lead and gold are as gossamer 
compared with it." 

In his work on the "Ether of Space" Sir 
Oliver Lodge says, "It (the ether) is turning out 
to be by far the most substantial thing, perhaps 
the only substantial thing in the material uni- 
verse. Compared to the ether, the densest mat- 
ter, such as lead and gold, is a filmy gossamer 
structure. . . . The fundamental medium 
filling all space, if there be such, must in my 
judgment, be ultimately incompressible, other- 
wise it would be composed of parts, and we 



98 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

should have to seek for something still more 
fundamental to fill the interstices." 

Sir Oliver now goes on to tell us about the 
"Electron." "The Ether being incompressible, 
and an electron being composed simply and 
solely of ether, it follows that it (the electron) 
cannot be either a condensation or a rarefaction 
of that material, but must be some singularity of 
structure or some portion (of the ether) other- 
wise differentiated. It might, for instance, be 
something analogous to a vortex ring, differen- 
tiated kinetically, i. e., by reason of its rotational 
motion, from the remainder of the ether; or it 
might be differentiated statically, and be some- 
thing which would have to be called a strain 
center or a region of twist, or something which 
cannot be very clearly at present imagined with 
any security, though various suggestions have 
been made in that direction. The simplest plan 
for us is to think of it somewhat as we think of a 
knot on a piece of string. The knot differs in 
no respect from the rest of the string except in 
its tied up structure; it is of the same density 
with the rest, and yet it is differentiated from the 
rest; and, in order to cease to be a knot, would 
have to be untied — a process which as yet we 
have not learned to a ppty to an electron. If 
ever such a procedure becomes possible, then 
electrons will thereby by resolved into the gen- 
eral body of the undifferentiated ether of space. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 99 

The important notion for present purposes is 
merely this ; that the density of the simple ether, 
and the density of the tied up or beknotted or 
otherwise modified ether constituting an elec- 
tron, are one and the same." . . . "Hence, 
the argument above given, when properly worked 
out, tends to establish the ethereal density as of 
the order 10 12 times that of water. There ought 
to be nothing surprising in such an estimate, in- 
asmuch as many converging lines of argument 
tend to show that ordinary matter is a very por- 
ous or gossamer-like substance, with interspaces 
great as compared with the spaces actually oc- 
cupied by the nuclei which constitute it. Our 
conception of matter, if it is to be composed of 
electrons, is necessarily like the conception of 
the solar system, or rather of a milky way, 
where there are innumerable dots here and there, 
with great interspaces between them, so that the 
average density of the whole of the dots or ma- 
terial particles taken together — that is to say, 
their aggregate mass compared with the space 
they occupy — is exceeedingly small." . . 
"A reader may suppose that in speaking of the 
immense density or massiveness of ether, and the 
absurdly small density or specific gravity of 
gross matter by comparison, I intend to sig- 
nify that matter is a rarefaction of the ether. 
That, however, is not my intention. The view 
I advocate is that the ether is a perfect con- 



100 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

tinuum, an absolute plenum, 1 and that, there- 
fore, no rarefaction is possible. The ether in- 
side matter is just as dense as the ether outside, 
and no denser. A material unit, say, an electron, 
is only a peculiarity or singularity of some kind 
in the ether itself, which is of perfectly uniform 
density everywhere. What we 'sense' as mat- 
ter is an aggregate or grouping of an enormous 
number of such twists. How then, can we say 
that (gross) matter is millions of times rarer or 
less substantial than the ether of which it is es- 
sentially composed? ... It may be noted 
that it is not unreasonable to argue that the 
density of a continuum is necessarily greater 
than the density of any disconnected aggregate ; 
certainly of any assemblage whose particles are 
actually composed of the material of the con- 
tinuum. Because the former is 'all there,' 
everywhere, without break or intermittance of 
any kind; while the latter has gaps in it — it is 
here and there but not everywhere. ... It 
may be said, why assume any definite density for 
the ether at all? Why not assume that, as it is 
infinitely continuous, so it is infinitely dense — 
whatever that may mean — and that all its prop- 
erties are infinite? This might be possible were 
it not for the velocity of light. By transmitting 

i For the sake of clearness, Prof. Lodge should have 
written "and space an absolute plenum" for that is what 
he wishes to express. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 101 

waves at a finite and measurable speed, the ether 
has given itself away, and let in all the possibili- 
ties of calculations and numerical statements. 
Its properties are thereby exhibited as essentially 
finite — however infinite the whole extent of it 
may turn out to be. . . . As for the elas- 
ticity of the ether, that is ascertainable at once 
from the speed at which it transmits waves. 
That speed — the velocity of light — is accurately 
known, 3 x 10 10 centimetres per second. And 
the ratios of the elasticity or rigidity to the 
density is equal to the square of the speed ; that 
is to say, the elasticity must be 9 x 10 10 times the 
density. . . . But we must go on to ask to 
what is this rigidity due? If the ether does not 
consist of parts, and if it is fluid, how can it 
possess the rigidity appropriate to a solid so as 
to transmit waves ? To answer this we must fall 
back upon Lord Kelvin's kinetic theory of elas- 
ticity ; that it must be due to rotational motion — 
intimate fine grained motion throughout the 
whole etherical region — motion not of the nature 
of locomotion, but circulation in closed curves, 
returning upon itself — vortex motion of a kind 
far more finely grained than any waves of light 
or any atomic or even electronic structure. Now 
if the elasticity of any medium is to be thus ex- 
plained kinetically, it follows, as a necessary con- 
sequence, that the speed of this internal motion 
must be comparable to the speed of wave propa- 



102 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

gation; that is to say, that the internal squirm- 
ing circulation, to which every part of the ether 
is subject, must be carried on with a velocity of 
the same order of magnitude as the velocity of 
light. This is the theory then — this theory of 
elasticity as dependent on motion — which, in 
combination with the estimate of density, makes 
the internal energy of the ether so gigantic. 
For in every cubic millimeter of space we have, 
according to this view, a mass equivalent to 
what, if it were (gross) matter, we should call a 
thousand tons, circulating internally, every part 
of it, with a velocity comparable to that of light, 
and therefore containing stored away in that 
small space, an amount of energy . 
equal to the energy of a 1,000,000 horsepower 
station working continuously 40,000,000 years. 
The question is often asked, is ether 
material? This is largely a question of words 
and convenience. Undoubtedly the ether be- 
longs to the material or physical universe, but it 
is not ordinary matter ; I should prefer to say it 
is not "matter" at all. It may be the substance 
or substratum or material of which matter is 
made, but it will be confusing and inconvenient 
not to be able to discriminate between (gross) 
matter on the one hand and ether on the other. 
If you tie a knot on a bit of string, the knot is 
composed of string, but the string is not com- 
posed of knots. If you have a smoke or vortex 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 103 

ring in the air, the vortex ring is made of air, 
but the atmosphere is not a vortex ring; and it 
would be only confusing to say it was. The es- 
sential distinction between (gross) matter and 
ether is that (gross) matter moves, in the sense 
that it has the property of locomotion and can 
effect impact and bombardment; while ether is 
strained, and has the property of exerting stress 
and recoil. All potential energy exists in the 
ether. It may vibrate and it may rotate, but 
as regards locomotion it is stationary — the most 
stationary body we know ; absolutely stationary, 
so to speak; our standard of rest." 

We have allowed the author of "The Ether of 
Space" to speak for himself so as to enable the 
reader, not familiar with the work, to exercise 
his own judgment as to the value of the specu- 
lations advanced. They are nothing but spec- 
ulations, and speculations that are not only 
incoherent, but even contradictory. 

We are asked to regard the ether of space as 
a continuum (that is, non-porous) and coexten- 
sive with space, which is therefore a plenum, 
that is, absolutely full. We are told that the 
ether is absolutely stationary, yet that it can vi- 
brate and rotate. But what is vibration but 
motion within certain limits? We are told that 
it can undergo stress or strain, resulting in the 
formation of nodes or "knots" called electrons, 
which are in incessant motion, combinations of 



104 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

which go to make up the particles known to 
chemistry as atoms, such as oxygen, hydrogen, 
iron, etc. We are invited to think of a knot in 
a string in order to bring before our mental vi- 
sion an image of these electrons which are occa- 
sioned by the strain in the ether. Now, we are 
justified in requesting to know what is meant by 
strain, used in this sense. In ordinary science 
when a bar of iron, for example, is put under 
strain, it means that there is a force applied 
which tends to rupture the continuity of the bar 
— tends to tear the atoms of iron from one an- 
other's embrace. In other words atomic motion 
or vibration is set up in the bar, which, if it pass 
certain limits, causes the atoms to recede so far 
from one another that they cannot recover them- 
selves, and the bar gives way. To return to the 
electron ; these tied up "knots" or "strains" in 
the ether, are allowed translation in space, and 
we may well ask how they can change their po- 
sition if there are no vacuities anywhere in the 
rest of the ether? We cannot suppose that the 
undifferentiated ether can penetrate through the 
differentiated portions of itself called the "elec- 
trons," for these electrons are themselves, ac- 
cording to the theory, so many individual con- 
tinuums, as dense as the general body of the 
ether. Elsewhere we are told that these electrons 
are charges of positive and negative electricity, 
hence the name electron. "An atom of hydrogen 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 105 

may consist of 700 electrons, 350 positive, and 
350 negative. Sixteen times as many would con- 
stitute an atom of oxygen, 16,000 an atom of 
radium. The mass of the electron is about 
tuW of the atomic mass of hydrogen. If an 
electron is represented as a sphere an inch in di- 
ameter, the diameter of an atom would be a mile 
and a half. The spaces between the electrons 
are thus enormous when compared with their size, 
relatively as great as the spaces between the 
planets of the solar system." From this quota- 
tion we are called upon to identify electricity as 
one with the electrons, which as we have before 
seen, are nothing but "strains" or "knots" in the 
general body of the ether. 

We are informed that the internal squirming 
circulation to which every part of the ether is 
subj ect, must be carried on with a velocity of the 
same order as the velocity of light, yet we are 
told that the ether is "absolutely stationary." 

The speculations advanced by Prof. Lodge 
and others may be met on both physical and 
philosophical grounds. 

1. It is physically impossible that motion 
can exist in the interior of a continuum. The 
possibility of such motion whether vortical, ro- 
tary, or in a direct line, presupposes the rupture 
of the continuum. But rupture means reces- 
sion or giving way of parts ; and how is it possi- 
ble for recession to take place in view of the 



106 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

fact that universal space is a plenum of the 
etherical continuum, so that there are no void 
spaces anywhere to permit of such recession or 
giving way. To make our meaning clearer, let 
us consider the "old" chemical atom. This atom 
was supposed to be without parts, that is a con- 
tinuum and, therefore, science never predicated 
motion in the interior of an atom. The atoms 
moved as a whole, and their motion manifested 
itself in the phenomena of heat, light, electricity, 
chemical affinity, etc., but their interior was ab- 
solutely quiescent, and it was recognized that to 
assume the possibility of internal motion would 
have destroyed the physical constitution of the 
atom as postulated. Now, if universal space is 
a plenum of the etherical continuum we are justi- 
fied in regarding the ether as analogous to the 
old chemical atom. We may indeed very prop- 
erly call it an atom of infinite dimensions. As 
the "old" physics could not entertain the idea of 
motion in the interior of the limited continuum, 
called the atom, so, for the same reason, must 
we deny the possibility of motion in the interior 
of the infinite continuum called the material 
universe — the One great atom. But this is an 
absurdity, motion exists everywhere about us and 
in us, and, as far as the senses can determine, 
there is no such thing as stability; everything 
seems to be in ceaseless motion and commotion. 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 107 

We are therefore compelled to regard the theory 
that the ether is a continuum, and that universal 
space is a 'plenum of it, as absolutely without 
scientific foundation. 

2. On philosophical grounds the theory is 
still more objectionable for we are thus brought 
face to face with an absolutely infinite corporeal- 
ity; but reason declares that there can be but 
one absolutely infinite Being, hence it follows 
that this Being is the Ether. A materialistic 
interpretation of the Supreme Being thus be- 
comes inevitable. Psychic conceptions must give 
way to materialistic conceptions, and what we 
call the psychic element in the universe of things 
becomes interpretable in terms of the mechanical 
manifestations of the universal ether. In our 
studies of it we are subjecting to analysis the 
very essence of Being. When we speak of the 
density and elasticity of the ether we are really 
speaking of the density and elasticity of the Un- 
caused Source of things — The One Supreme 
Being. 

But we are here met by one of those pure 
conceptions of the understanding that calls a 
halt to our reckless course — "The whole is 
greater than any of its parts." The Uncaused 
cannot be subjected to analysis or compre- 
hended by that which Itself has caused. 



108 THE UNCAUSED BEING AND 

CONCLUSION 

The ether is not a continuum and universal 
space is not a plenum of it; in other words, 
empty spaces (voids) do really exist. However 
extended the ether may be throughout the Celes- 
tial Sphere it is not an absolutely infinite cor- 
poreality — not an absolutely infinite magnitude, 
for it is everywhere limited by the voids or 
spaces which separate its ultimate particles. We 
can, therefore, conceive of a greater magnitude 
than really exists, for in imagination we can fill 
these voids with matter. 

The ultimate particles of the ether may be the 
real atoms of nature, and the various combina- 
tions in chemical union may be the source of all 
material forms. We may then regard the so- 
called elements, gold, silver, etc., as the children 
of the ether of space, and the old chemical atom 
as a molecule or compound of the ultimate eth- 
eric atoms. It may be that these molecules 
sometimes undergo dissolution (as is held to be 
the case with radium), and the etheric atoms of 
which they are composed returned to the gen- 
eral body of the ether whence they arose. It is 
unfortunate that the term, electron, has been 
grafted on the language of science, for it as- 
sumes the identity of electricity with the etheric 
atom, a mere speculation. 

As to the nature of the ether, Newton con- 



THE CRITERION OF TRUTH 109 

jectured that it might be about 700,000 times 
more elastic than air and above 700,000 times 
more rare. Its resistance he found would be 
above 600,000,000 times less than water, and 
that such resistance would make no sensible al- 
teration in the motion of the planets in 10,000 
years. This view of the ether as a subtle fluid 
of great rarity — so rare that its resistance de- 
fies all attempts at accurate measurement — is 
more in accord with our common sense percep- 
tion than the theory advanced by Prof. Lodge. 
From whatever point of view regarded this 
theory is unsatisfactory. 

1. It abolishes space as such, and calls upon 
us to regard the universe as a solid mass of mat- 
ter of absolute density — a continuum. 

2. It declares that the ether is absolutely 
stationary, yet affirms that it is in a state of 
ceaseless vortical or vibratory motion of such 
magnitude as to bewilder the mind. This vor- 
tical motion is allowed it on the ground of its 
being a "perfect fluid. 9 * We are thus asked to 
reconcile perfect fluidity with absolute density — 
a density so great that the heaviest metals are 
but as "gossamer" compared with it. 

3. The theory holds that the "electron" is a 
"differentiated part," or a "twist," or a "strain," 
or a "knot" or some other "singularity" of the 
ether, and is as "dense as it but no denser." 
These electrons are in constant motion in the in- 



110 THE UNCAUSED BEING 

terior of the old chemical atom with a velocity 
comparable to that of light. We are invited to 
contemplate these (the old chemical atoms) as 
minute solar systems in which the distance sep- 
arating each electron is relatively as great as 
the distances which separate the planets. We 
are told that the body of the atom is composed 
of the absolutely continuous ether, and that the 
"strains" or "twists" in it, called electrons, are 
rupturing this mass ceaselessly with the above 
named velocity. Are we not justified in asking 
how such a remarkable motion could take place 
in a medium of absolute density by a portion of 
this same medium arranged as a "twist" or a 
"strain"? 

The theory of an Ethereal Continuum is there- 
fore worthless — worthless by reason of its in- 
consistency and fundamental incoherence ; worth- 
less as absolutely without scientific evidence; 
worthless as establishing antagonism between 
sense perception and a priori conceptions; worth- 
less, therefore, in its philosophical implications, 
for, in predicating absolute infinitude of the 
ether, it lends itself to that system of thought 
which identifies the material universe with the 
ultimate essence of Uncaused Being. 



MAY, 25 19U , 



One copy del. to Cat. Div. 
wvy 25 «U 



